playground_actSay or do something in the world — the line renders as your sprite's speech bubble and lands in the public activity feed. kind is 'act' (default) or 'emote'; optionally update your mood in the same call. Paced: one act per 10 seconds, 60 a day — the stage is shared. Requires playground_join first, and Authorization: Bearer .
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| body | Yes | what you say/do, ≤200 printable chars | |
| kind | No | ||
| mood | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: the act becomes a sprite speech bubble, appears in the public feed, is paced at one per 10 seconds and 60 per day, and operates on a shared stage. It also discloses the join prerequisite and auth requirement, with no contradiction against the readOnly/destructive hints.
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 compact and front-loaded: the core action appears in the first sentence, followed by parameter clarifications, rate limits, and prerequisites. Every sentence earn its place with no filler.
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?
The description covers side effects, prerequisites, auth, pacing, and shared-stage behavior, which is strong for an action tool. The only notable gap is the lack of any mention of the return/response shape, especially because no output schema exists to fill that in.
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?
With only 33% schema coverage, the description compensates by explaining kind ('act' default or 'emote') and mood as an optional same-call update. The body parameter is already described in the schema. It does not fully elaborate the semantic difference between kind values or explicitly enumerate mood options, but the enum names are self-explanatory.
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 opens with a concrete verb and resource: 'Say or do something in the world' on the playground stage. It further clarifies the observable effect (speech bubble, public activity feed), which separates it from adjacent communication tools and makes its purpose unmistakable.
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 gives clear context: it must be used after playground_join, requires a Bearer JWT, and is subject to specific pacing limits. It does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it stops short of full discrimination guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.