search_destiny_playerFind Destiny player by display name with code.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| membership_type | Yes | ||
| display_name_with_code | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "display_name_with_code": "Guardian#1234",
+ "membership_type": 3
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Destiny player search response",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description adds no behavioral context beyond the annotations, which already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. It fails to disclose any additional traits like authentication or rate limits.
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 extremely concise (5 words), but it sacrifices necessary detail. It is front-loaded but lacks structure or additional information that would justify its brevity.
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?
Given two required parameters with no schema descriptions and the existence of an output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain parameter constraints or values, leaving the agent ill-equipped to invoke the tool correctly.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description must explain the parameters. It only mentions 'display name with code' but does not clarify 'membership_type', leaving the agent without meaningful context for that parameter.
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 clearly states it finds a Destiny player by display name with code, which is specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the sibling 'search_destiny_players_by_global_name', though the mention of 'with code' implies a distinction.
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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as the sibling 'search_destiny_players_by_global_name'. An agent must infer usage from the description alone.
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.