sacloud-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds useful context about potential timeouts during startup, which is a critical behavioral trait not inferable from the schema. However, it lacks details on permissions required, rate limits, error conditions, or whether the operation is idempotent. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its behavior.

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, warning, Args, Returns) and uses bullet points in the Returns section for readability. It's appropriately sized—each sentence adds value, such as the timeout warning and parameter explanations. However, the Japanese text might require translation for some users, and the Returns section is somewhat detailed but necessary given no output schema.

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 complexity (a mutation operation with potential timeouts), no annotations, no output schema, and low schema coverage (0%), the description does an adequate job. It covers the purpose, parameters, and return structure, and adds a behavioral warning. However, it lacks information on error handling, authentication needs, or interaction with sibling tools (e.g., 'stop_server'), making it incomplete for full 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?

The schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It includes an 'Args' section that documents both parameters ('zone' and 'server_id') with brief explanations in Japanese, adding meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it doesn't specify format constraints (e.g., zone codes, server ID patterns) or provide examples, leaving some ambiguity. Given the low schema coverage, this partial compensation justifies a baseline 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でサーバーを起動します' (start a server using Sakura Cloud API). It specifies the verb ('起動します' - start) and resource ('サーバー' - server), and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'stop_server' and 'create_server'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other power-related operations beyond the obvious name contrast.

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 implied usage context by mentioning that 'サーバの起動には時間がかかるため、リクエストがタイムアウトする場合があります' (server startup takes time, so requests may timeout). This suggests when to use it (for starting servers) and hints at a constraint (potential timeouts). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to use this versus alternatives like 'create_server' or 'stop_server', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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