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), implying it's non-destructive, but doesn't cover important aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, error handling, or whether it's idempotent. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 clear sections (purpose, Args, Returns) and uses minimal Japanese text efficiently. It avoids redundancy, though the English translations in the Returns section could be more concise. Overall, it's appropriately sized and front-loaded with the main purpose.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is partially complete. It covers the purpose and parameters well but lacks usage guidelines, behavioral details, and output format explanations beyond a basic JSON structure. This makes it adequate but with clear gaps for an agent to use it effectively.

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?

The description includes an 'Args' section that documents both parameters (zone and server_id) with their types and purposes, adding meaningful context beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. This compensates well for the schema's lack of descriptions, though it doesn't provide examples or constraints (e.g., valid zone values).

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からサーバーの電源状態を取得します' (Get server power status from Sakura Cloud API). It specifies the verb (取得/retrieve) and resource (サーバーの電源状態/server power status), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_server_list or get_server_plan, which lowers it from 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 prerequisites (e.g., needing server_id and zone), compare it to related tools like start_server or stop_server, or indicate any constraints. This leaves the agent without context for tool selection.

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