Generate a random character for an RPG system (D&D 5e, Pathfinder, Ironsworn, Cairn, Knave, etc)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| class | No | Class preference (omit for random) | |
| level | No | Character level (default: 1) | |
| system | Yes | RPG system (dnd-5e, pathfinder-1e, ironsworn, starforged, cairn, knave, maze-rats, dungeon-world) |
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 responsibility. It states the basic generation action but does not disclose output format, error behavior with invalid systems, or any limitations/quirks. This is minimal transparency.
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 a single well-structured sentence that immediately states the tool's function and gives useful examples. No redundant words or 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?
Even for a relatively simple generator, the description is thin. It does not mention what the output looks like (e.g., JSON character sheet, stats), how level/class interact with system, or any default behavior beyond what the schema hints. With no output schema, this is a notable gap.
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%, with descriptions for system, class, and level. The description adds little beyond listing a few example systems, which are already enumerated in the schema, so it doesn't enhance parameter understanding.
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 uses a specific verb ('Generate') and resource ('random character for an RPG system'), and lists concrete systems, making the tool's purpose explicit and distinct from sibling tools like rpg_loot or rpg_random_encounter.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like rpg_random and rpg_random_encounter, the description should clarify that this is for character generation specifically, but it does not.
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.
