get_design_progress_simpleFetch compact design prosecution progress from the official JPO API using a 10-digit Japanese design application number. Check design case status and prosecution updates.
Fetch compact design prosecution progress from the official JPO API.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| applicationNumber | Yes | Japan design application number (10 digits) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safe-read nature is covered structurally. The description adds only that data comes from the official JPO API and is 'compact' – no disclosure of rate limits, auth requirements, or how compact differs from the full tool.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with zero filler. Nothing is redundant or padded.
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 single-param read tool with full schema coverage and annotations, the essentials are present. But with no output schema and no explanation of what 'compact progress' contains, the agent cannot anticipate the response shape or how it differs from the sibling tool.
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?
There is a single parameter with 100% schema coverage, and the schema documents the 10-digit pattern and Japan design application number semantics. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
States a specific verb ('Fetch') and resource ('design prosecution progress'), and the word 'compact' hints at a reduced-detail variant. However, it never explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling get_design_progress, leaving the agent to infer what 'simple' drops.
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 when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no mention of the obvious alternative get_design_progress (or get_design_registration/documents). The agent gets no basis for choosing 'simple' over the full version.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.