Set your status message and clan tag (Status max 64 chars, clan tag max 4 chars.)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| clan_tag | No | Clan tag (max 4 chars) | |
| session_id | Yes | Your session ID from login/register | |
| status_message | No | Status message (max 64 chars) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / properties / status_message / descriptionPrevious value: -"Status message"New value: +"Status message (max 64 chars)"Input schema / properties / status_message / maxLengthPrevious value: -100New value: +64Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description declares a write ('Set your status message and clan tag'), while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true. That is a direct contradiction of the safety profile an agent relies on to decide whether it may call this freely. No compensating behavioral context (visibility of the status, faction-membership requirement for clan_tag, response shape) is given.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with the constraints in parentheses — nothing wasted. It loses a point only because the max-length figures duplicate what maxLength already enforces in the 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?
With 3 params fully documented and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate for identifying the tool. But for a mutation it omits whether the status is visible to other players, whether clan_tag requires faction membership, and how to clear an existing value — gaps the (contradictory) annotations do not fill.
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 100% and both optional fields carry their own descriptions and maxLength constraints, so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description only restates the same 64/4 character limits, adding no meaning about format, defaults, or clearing behavior (e.g. empty string to unset).
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?
States a specific verb and resource: 'Set your status message and clan tag', with the two affected fields named. It is distinguishable from the sibling get_status (read vs write) without opening the schema, though the description never explicitly names that counterpart.
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 by the verb — an agent can infer you call this to change your public profile text, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance and no mention of the get_status sibling as the read counterpart. Nothing misleading, but nothing routing either.
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.