Player Characters
player_charactersCharacter list.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid_or_username | Yes |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
player_charactersCharacter list.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uuid_or_username | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "uuid_or_username": "Technoblade"
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "description": "Character list from Wynncraft API",
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive behavior, so the description adds no extra behavioral context. It does not contradict annotations, but provides no additional transparency.
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 but lacks necessary detail; it is underspecified rather than concise. Every sentence should add value, but this one fails to do so.
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 the presence of an output schema and the need to clarify what is listed, the description is completely inadequate. It does not explain whether the list is for the given player or all characters, nor its relationship to sibling tools.
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 coverage is 0% and the description does not explain the single parameter 'uuid_or_username'. The description 'Character list' gives no hint about the parameter's purpose.
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 'Character list' is vague. It does not specify a verb or resource scope, and fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'player' or 'online_players'.
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 usage guidance is provided. The description lacks any indication of when to use this tool versus alternatives.
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.