Private message to a player by name. Max 100 chars.
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": {
"to": "<to>",
"text": "<text>"
},
"name": "whisper"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| to | Yes | ||
| text | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnly=false, destructiveHint=true, idempotent=false), so the description does not need to repeat that. It does add the 100-character limit, a real behavioral constraint absent from the schema, but it never explains the destructive/irreversible nature the annotations claim or what happens if the recipient is unknown or offline.
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?
Two compact sentences with the action stated first and the constraint second; nothing is redundant. It is arguably terse to the point of omitting needed context, but no sentence is wasted.
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 simple two-parameter messaging tool with no output schema this is close to adequate, but the destructiveHint=true annotation is left unexplained and there is no mention of delivery failure, offline recipients, or truncation behavior past 100 chars.
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 0%, so both parameters rely entirely on the description. 'By name' clarifies that 'to' is a player name rather than an ID, and 'Max 100 chars' bounds 'text'; however, exact-match/case behavior for the name and failure behavior are undocumented.
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: sending a private message to a named player. The word 'private' implicitly distinguishes it from public-chat siblings like 'say' or 'game_command', though no sibling is named explicitly.
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 only implied by the contrast between 'private message' and public chat tools; there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over 'say' or when not to use it. An agent can infer the intent but must reason about it.
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.