Zaim API MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool retrieves user information but doesn't mention any behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, response format, or whether it's a read-only operation. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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: 'Zaimユーザーの詳細情報（プロフィール、統計情報等）を取得します'. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses parentheses to clarify scope without unnecessary elaboration. Every word earns its place, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 (simple retrieval with no parameters) but lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the returned user information includes (e.g., profile vs. statistics details), authentication needs, or error handling. For a tool with no structured data to supplement it, the description should provide more context to be fully helpful.

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 tool has 0 parameters, and the input schema has 100% description coverage (though empty). The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics, as there are no parameters to explain. This meets the baseline for tools with no parameters, as it doesn't mislead or omit necessary information about inputs.

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: 'Zaimユーザーの詳細情報（プロフィール、統計情報等）を取得します' (Get detailed Zaim user information such as profile, statistics, etc.). It specifies the verb '取得します' (get/retrieve) and resource 'Zaimユーザーの詳細情報' (Zaim user details), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'zaim_get_user_accounts' or 'zaim_get_money_records', which also retrieve user-related data but for different resources.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites (e.g., authentication status), context for usage, or exclusions. Given sibling tools like 'zaim_get_user_accounts' and 'zaim_get_user_categories', the lack of differentiation leaves the agent without clear usage instructions.

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