Retrieve summaries of your note.com memberships to view all subscriptions in one place.
加入済みメンバーシップ一覧を取得する
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "get-membership-summaries"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"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 states it's a read operation ('取得する' - get), which implies safety, but doesn't cover aspects like authentication needs, rate limits, pagination, or what the return format looks like (since no output schema exists). This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely returns user data.
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 a single, efficient sentence in Japanese that directly states the tool's purpose with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 likely returns user membership data (a read operation with potential complexity), the description is incomplete. With no annotations and no output schema, it fails to explain return values, error conditions, or behavioral traits. For a tool in a context with many sibling tools, more guidance on output and usage would be beneficial.
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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as it adequately handles the lack of parameters without introducing confusion.
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 '加入済みメンバーシップ一覧を取得する' (Get list of joined memberships) states a clear verb ('取得する' - get) and resource ('加入済みメンバーシップ一覧' - list of joined memberships), but it's vague about scope and doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get-membership-plans' or 'get-test-membership-summaries'. It provides basic purpose but lacks specificity.
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 like 'get-membership-plans' (which might show available plans rather than joined ones) or 'get-test-membership-summaries' (which might be for testing). The description implies usage for retrieving joined memberships but offers no explicit when/when-not instructions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.