Walk to a visible player (needed before trading).
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"name": "<name>"
},
"name": "go_to_player"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare non-readonly, non-idempotent, open-world and destructive behavior, so the safety bar is lower. The description adds the meaningful precondition that the target must be visible, but does not explain what 'destructive' means here (movement risk, interrupting current action) or what happens if the player is not visible or unreachable.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with the action first and the usage cue in a compact parenthetical. No filler, and the most decision-relevant detail (visible player, trading prerequisite) appears immediately.
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 one-parameter movement tool with no output schema and rich annotations, the description covers purpose, precondition, and typical use. Failure modes and whether the call blocks until arrival are the only notable omissions, and annotations carry much of the remaining context.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single undocumented 'name' parameter. It partially does: the name is implicitly the player's name and the player must be visible, but it says nothing about whether exact spelling, proximity limits, or ambiguity between same-named players matters.
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 target ('Walk to a visible player') plus a use-case anchor ('needed before trading'), which separates it from generic movement tools like go_to/autopilot. It does not explicitly name a sibling to contrast with, keeping it short of a 5.
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 parenthetical gives a clear triggering condition: call this before trading with a player. There is no explicit when-not-to-use guidance (e.g., if the player is out of range or already adjacent, or whether go_to/autopilot is preferable for non-player targets).
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.