sacloud-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states this is a read operation ('取得します' - get/retrieve), which implies it's non-destructive, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, error handling, or what 'サーバ一覧' (server list) specifically includes. The return format is mentioned ('JSONレスポンス' - JSON response), but without details on structure or content.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by structured Args and Returns sections. However, the Args section could be more integrated into the flow, and some redundancy exists (e.g., 'JSONレスポンス' is implied by 'dict').

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 1 parameter, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and parameter, but lacks behavioral context (e.g., authentication, rate limits) and detailed return value explanation. For a simple read tool, this is borderline adequate but could be more informative.

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 adds minimal semantics: 'zone (str): 取得対象のゾーン' (zone: target zone to retrieve from). This clarifies the parameter's purpose but doesn't provide format details, valid values, or examples. With 1 parameter and low schema coverage, this is adequate but leaves gaps.

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からサーバ一覧を取得します' (Get server list from Sakura Cloud API). It specifies the verb ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('サーバ一覧' - server list), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_server_power_status' or 'get_server_plan', which also retrieve server-related information.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention sibling tools like 'get_server_power_status' (for power status) or 'get_server_plan' (for plan details), nor does it specify prerequisites or context for usage beyond the basic function.

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