Zaim API MCP Server

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 states this is a retrieval operation ('取得します'), which implies read-only behavior, but doesn't mention any constraints like rate limits, authentication requirements, or response format details that would help the agent understand how to properly invoke it.

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 communicates the core purpose without any wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple retrieval tool with one parameter.

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 simple read operation with 100% schema coverage but no annotations or output schema, the description provides adequate basic information about what the tool does. However, it lacks details about authentication requirements, response format, or error conditions that would be helpful for the agent.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the single 'mode' parameter with its enum values and description. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what's in the schema, meeting the baseline expectation when schema coverage is high.

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 ('取得します' - get/retrieve) and resource ('Zaimのデフォルトジャンル一覧' - Zaim's default genre list) with scope qualification ('支出または収入' - expense or income). It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like zaim_get_user_genres, but the 'default' distinction is implied.

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 like zaim_get_user_genres or zaim_get_default_categories. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be selected over other available options.

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