sacloud-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states this is a read operation (取得/get), which implies it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't explicitly confirm safety, permissions required, rate limits, or error handling. The description mentions the return is a JSON response from the API but lacks details on structure or potential side effects, leaving significant gaps for a tool with no annotation coverage.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is well-structured with a clear purpose statement, Args section with parameter details, and Returns section. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main functionality. Minor improvements could include briefer formatting, but overall it's efficient with minimal waste.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description does a decent job covering basics: purpose, parameters, and return type. However, it lacks details on error cases, authentication needs, rate limits, and the exact structure of the returned JSON. For a monitoring tool with 4 parameters, this leaves some gaps in contextual understanding.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It provides clear semantics for all parameters: zone (取得対象のゾーン/target zone), internet_id (ルータID/router ID), start (開始時刻/start time with ISO format and default), and end (終了時刻/end time with ISO format and default). This adds substantial value beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't explain possible zone values or internet_id format, preventing a perfect score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'さくらのクラウドAPIからルータのネットワーク流量のリソースモニタ情報を取得します' (Get router network traffic resource monitor information from Sakura Cloud API). It specifies the verb (取得/retrieve) and resource (ルータのネットワーク流量のリソースモニタ情報/router network traffic resource monitor info). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_vpn_monitor or get_router_list, which is why it doesn't achieve a perfect score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context for usage, or comparisons with sibling tools like get_vpn_monitor or get_router_list. The only implicit usage hint is that it's for monitoring router traffic, but this is insufficient for effective tool selection.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.