Find another player by username, like using Find a player on the in-game Phone.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| player_search_query | Yes | Username, e.g. tobi (with or without @). | |
| notification_message | No | Short user-facing sentence for this action if the follow-up reply fails. Plain text only; do not mention template syntax or variable names. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden, yet it discloses nothing about side effects, whether matches are exact or partial, rate limits, or what is returned. The existence of a notification_message parameter for a purported lookup tool hints at side effects or a follow-up interaction, which the description never addresses.
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?
A single short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. The Phone analogy adds orientation cheaply, though it consumes the only sentence without conveying behavior.
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 2-parameter, annotation-free tool with no output schema, the definition is only minimally complete: it never explains the notification_message parameter's role in this tool's flow or what a search returns. The schema covers the mechanics, but behavior around side effects is missing.
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 coverage is 100%, so both parameters are documented in the schema, including the '@' optionality and notification_message failure semantics. The description only echoes 'by username,' adding no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 and resource (find a player) and uses the in-game Phone analogy to anchor the search concept, and 'another player' implicitly distinguishes it from get_my_profile. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from near-neighbors like list_contacts or get_chat_with_player, which also deal with other players.
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?
Usage is implied by 'Find another player by username,' but there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or named alternative (e.g., list_contacts when the player is already a contact). The agent must infer routing from sibling names alone.
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.