Tanks comparison OG card
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slugs | Yes | Columns to compare (2 to 4). A slug on its own, or suffixed with the game client to read it on (`is-7@ct`) or with its position among the columns showing that same vehicle (`is-7~2`, one tank under two setups). | |
| region | Yes | Game server region. |
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 the full burden of disclosure. The only hint is "OG card," implying an image response rather than JSON, but nothing is said about caching, image dimensions, auth requirements, or what happens with invalid slugs.
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 four-word fragment with no padding, so there is no bloat, but the brevity is under-specification rather than efficient structure — it is too terse to front-load anything useful.
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?
Two required parameters with no annotations and no output schema, yet the description says nothing about the rendered card, image format, or how slug ordering maps to columns. It leaves the agent guessing about both input intent and response shape.
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%, and the schema itself explains the slug suffix syntax (`is-7@ct`, `is-7~2`) and the 2-to-4 column constraint, plus the region enum. Description adds nothing, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
"Tanks comparison OG card" largely restates the tool name (og_tanks_compare) with only a hint that the output is an Open Graph card artifact. It never states an action verb or what the card is for, and it does not distinguish itself from siblings like tanks_compare or og_tanks_by_slug.
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 guidance on when to use this over tanks_compare (data) or og_tanks_by_slug (single-tank card). The agent must infer that the og_ prefix plus a comparison payload means a shareable image rather than structured data.
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.