Today's three daily quests (new every midnight, Sydney time), your progress, your daily streak and your level. Each quest gives XP and a few hundred Gallery Coins (play money).
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": "my_quests"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With only a title annotation, the description still discloses genuinely useful behavior: quests reset every midnight Sydney time, and each awards XP plus a few hundred Gallery Coins. Calling the currency 'play money' sets expectations about value. It stops short of stating that calling it has no side effects and that quests are claimed elsewhere.
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 sentences, no filler. The payload (what you get back) leads, and the reward/reset detail follows as supporting context. Every clause carries information an agent cannot get from the empty schema.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description compensates well by describing the return shape: quests, progress, streak, level, and reward type. For a trivial no-parameter read tool this is nearly complete; only the absence of an explicit read-only/no-side-effect statement keeps it from a 5.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4. The schema is an empty object and the description correctly adds nothing about inputs, only about output content.
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 (daily quests) and enumerates exactly what is returned: today's three quests, progress, streak, and level. The verb is implicit in the 'my_*' naming, but no agent would misread this as a mutation or confuse it with siblings like hunt_claim or my_collection.
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: an agent can infer this is the daily check-in for quests and rewards. There is no explicit statement that it is a safe read with no side effects, and no guidance pointing to a sibling (e.g. hunt_claim, hunt_clues) for the related daily hunt loop.
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.