Players, monsters and NPCs your character sees, closest first.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "look_around"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| radius | No | Radius in game units (default 2000, max 6000) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish that this is a read-only observation of an open world, so the safety profile is largely covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral detail absent from annotations and the schema -- what entities are returned and that they are ordered by proximity -- but says nothing about visibility rules, empty results, or how radius affects the list. Note the annotations themselves pair readOnlyHint=true with destructiveHint=true, which is internally inconsistent, though the description does not contradict them.
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 sentence fragment with no wasted words, and the most useful information (what is returned, ordering) is front-loaded. It is terse to the point of lacking a verb, but not padded or disorganized.
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-optional-parameter read-only perception tool with no output schema, the description covers what an agent most needs: the entity types returned and their ordering. Missing only edge behavior (empty results, what 'sees' excludes), which is minor at this complexity.
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 100%, fully documenting radius (default 2000, max 6000), so the baseline is 3. The description does not mention radius or explain how widening it changes the result set, adding nothing beyond the schema.
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 names the resource concretely -- players, monsters and NPCs visible to the character -- and states the ordering ('closest first'). It is a noun phrase without an explicit verb, so the agent must infer 'look/list', but the content of the result is unambiguous and distinguishable from siblings like inventory or status.
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?
There is no guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as status or go_to_player, no mention of costs, cooldowns, or when the result would be empty. Usage is only implied by the tool name and the returned entities.
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.