equipped_loadoutEquipped loadout (components=205).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| character_id | Yes | ||
| membership_type | Yes | ||
| destiny_membership_id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "character_id": "2305843009265042743",
+ "destiny_membership_id": "4611686018429783292",
+ "membership_type": 3
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Equipped loadout response",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds no behavioral detail beyond 'components=205', which is unexplained. No mention of what happens during fetch or any side effects.
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 very short (one sentence), but conciseness is undermined by lack of useful information. It is not front-loaded with key purpose; the only added detail 'components=205' is opaque.
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?
While an output schema exists, the description fails to explain what the tool returns or how the input parameters relate to the game context. For a tool with three required parameters and many siblings, this is insufficient.
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?
All three parameters (character_id, membership_type, destiny_membership_id) have 0% schema description coverage. The description does not explain what these parameters represent or how they should be used, leaving the agent to guess.
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 merely restates the tool name 'Equipped loadout' with a cryptic 'components=205'. It does not clarify that this retrieves a Destiny character's currently equipped items, nor does it distinguish the tool from siblings like 'character' or 'profile'.
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 tool instead of alternatives. Sibling tools cover many related functions (e.g., 'character', 'profile', 'entity_definition'), but the description offers no context for selection.
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.