sacloud-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions the API context and describes the return structure, but doesn't address critical behavioral aspects like required permissions, whether this is a destructive operation, potential side effects, error handling, or rate limits. The description provides basic functional information but lacks important operational context.

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 (Args, Returns) and efficiently presents information. The Japanese introductory sentence is direct, though some might argue the detailed return structure could be simplified. Overall, it's appropriately sized with minimal wasted space.

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?

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description provides adequate functional information but lacks important operational context. It explains parameters and return values well, but doesn't address permissions, side effects, or error conditions that would be crucial for safe tool invocation. The presence of detailed return structure helps but doesn't fully compensate for missing behavioral guidance.

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?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description compensates well by explaining all three parameters: 'zone' as the target zone, 'server_id' as the server identifier, and 'force' as an optional flag for forced stopping with default value. This adds meaningful semantic context beyond the bare schema, though it doesn't elaborate on zone format or server_id constraints.

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 action ('停止します' - stops) and resource ('サーバー' - server) in the context of the Sakura Cloud API. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'start_server' by specifying the opposite action. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other server-related tools like 'get_server_power_status' beyond the action verb.

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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives. While the presence of 'start_server' as a sibling implies this is for stopping rather than starting, there's no explicit comparison or context about prerequisites, error conditions, or when force stopping might be appropriate versus normal stopping.

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