Claim a golden key by naming the room it's hidden in (e.g. 'sculpture court').
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": {
"key": "<key>",
"room": "<room>"
},
"name": "hunt_claim"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| room | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
There are no behavioral annotations beyond a title, so the description carries the full burden. It says the tool claims a golden key, but it does not disclose permissions, success or failure behavior, whether claims are one-time, or what happens if the room is wrong. The mutation-like behavior is only implied by "Claim."
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 front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The example is embedded efficiently and directly supports invocation.
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 tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. It omits what the "key" parameter means, does not explain prerequisites or alternatives such as hunt_clues, and gives no success or error behavior.
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 explain both required parameters. It gives meaning and an example for "room," but the required "key" parameter is never explained, leaving an important input ambiguous.
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 states a specific verb and resource: "Claim a golden key." It also clarifies the mechanism, "by naming the room it's hidden in," so the core action is clear. It does not distinguish this tool from the sibling hunt_clues tool or explain how the two relate, so it stops 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 description implies usage by explaining that the room must be named, and it gives an example room. However, it does not say when to use this tool versus hunt_clues, whether clues are required first, or what conditions make a claim valid. This is implied rather than explicit guidance.
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.