Server has 4 tools with basic schemas and descriptions, but significant quality gaps. Tool names lack action verbs (echo, printEnv are acceptable; webToGrareco and textToGrareco are vague about transformation intent). Descriptions exist but are minimal (10-50 chars for utility tools; 60-80 chars for core tools). Parameter descriptions are present but lack detail on constraints, formats, or error cases. No output schemas documented. No error handling guidance. No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint). Core tools (webToGrareco, textToGrareco) lack clarity on what 'graphic recording format HTML' means to an LLM, no example output structure provided.
Echoes back the input
Prints all environment variables, helpful for debugging MCP server configuration
テキストをグラフィックレコーディング形式のHTMLに変換します
URLからWebサイトを取得し、グラフィックレコーディング形式のHTMLに変換します
Core tools (webToGrareco, textToGrareco) lack output schema documentation. LLMs cannot plan downstream operations or extract structured data from HTML responses.
Tool names webToGrareco and textToGrareco do not start with action verbs. Rename to convert_web_to_grareco and convert_text_to_grareco for clarity.
Descriptions for webToGrareco and textToGrareco are in Japanese and under 100 chars. No English fallback. LLMs may not understand intent or when to invoke these tools.
No error handling guidance. Tools may fail (network errors, API limits, invalid input) but responses do not guide LLM recovery actions.
Inferred effective spec: <=2025-11-25.
| Scored | Grade | Overall | Spec posture | Rubric |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-09-23 | D | 56 | <=2025-11-25 | v2 |
No tool annotations (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint, idempotentHint). All tools are read-only but this is not declared in schema.