helldivers2-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It indicates a read-only operation ('Fetch') and describes the return format ('Returns a list of planets with their id (index), name, and sector'). However, it does not disclose potential edge cases like pagination, sorting, or error conditions, which are relevant for a list endpoint.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that directly states the action and return value. It is succinct with no redundant information, and every word adds value.

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 simplicity of the tool (no params, no output schema), the description adequately covers the essential behavior and return fields. However, it could explicitly state that the list includes all planets without pagination or filtering, though this is mostly implied by 'all planets'.

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 has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter meanings. The baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adds clarity by noting the return fields, providing context beyond the empty schema.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Fetch a list of all planets in the current galactic war.' It specifies the exact resource (planets) and action (fetch list), making it distinct from sibling tools like get_planet_details, which implies fetching a single planet.

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?

The description implies usage when a complete list of planets is needed, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternatives or state when not to use it. For example, it doesn't mention that get_planet_details should be used for specific planet details. The implied guidance is enough but lacks explicit direction.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full transparency burden. It clearly indicates a read-only 'Fetch' operation and thoroughly enumerates all returned data fields, including task list details and expiration. It lacks only explicit statements about error cases or empty results, but is otherwise transparent.

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 two sentences: the first states the action and object, the second lists all return components. Every word adds value, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite having no output schema and no annotations, the description covers essential output semantics, including task list decoded details, progress, rewards, and expiry. For a zero-input tool, this is a comprehensive and self-contained description.

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 has zero parameters and an empty schema, so baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter information, which is acceptable since there are no inputs to document; it implicitly communicates that no arguments are needed.

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?

Description starts with 'Fetch' and clearly identifies the resource as 'currently active assignments (Major Orders)', which is a specific verb+resource pairing. It also lists all key return fields, effectively distinguishing this tool from sibling tools focused on planets, dispatches, etc.

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?

The description states it fetches 'currently active' assignments, implying it is not for historical data. While it does not explicitly name alternatives, the sibling tool list shows no overlapping assignment-related tool, so the usage context is clear without needing explicit exclusions.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool returns published dates as relative time and message text, and specifies the default and maximum for the limit parameter. This is adequate for a read-only fetch, though it doesn't cover potential side effects 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 concise and well-structured: two sentences that first state the purpose and then cover return format and parameter behavior. No unnecessary words.

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?

For a simple tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains what it returns, the parameter's behavior, and the source. It is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and fully documents the limit parameter with default and max values. The description merely repeats this information, adding no additional semantic value beyond the schema.

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 the action ('Fetch') and resource ('dispatches (news feed)'), and it distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_assignments or get_war_status by focusing on news feed items from Super Earth high command.

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?

The description provides clear context for when to use the tool (fetching latest dispatches) and implies it is for news feed content. However, it does not explicitly exclude alternatives or name sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly details the return structure, including nested objects like Biome, Hazard, and Statistics, and mentions conditional information (e.g., event info if active). It also states the requirement and limit on planetindices. However, it does not discuss error behavior, rate limits, or side effects, though the tool appears to be a read-only fetch.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, followed by requirements and a comprehensive output list. Every piece of information is relevant given the tool's complexity, but the entire description is a single dense paragraph. It is not as concise as it could be with bullet points or shorter sentences, yet it earns its place by documenting many return fields.

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?

The description is exceptionally thorough for a tool with no output schema. It enumerates all return fields, including nested structures and conditional sections, and provides parameter constraints. For the tool's complexity, this description leaves little ambiguity about what the agent will receive, making it contextually complete.

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 schema description only says 'A list of planet indices to get detailed information for.' The tool description adds practical constraints: 'maximum of 5' and implies a minimum of 1 ('one or more planets'). This enriches the parameter semantics beyond the schema, even though schema coverage is 100%.

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 the tool's function: 'Fetch detailed information about one or more planets by providing their planet index/indices.' It specifies the resource (planet details), the verb (fetch), and the input (planet indices), which distinguishes it from siblings like get_all_planets that likely provide a list without full detail.

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?

The description implies usage by stating the required parameter and the maximum of 5 indices, but it does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or provide exclusion criteria. For example, it does not say 'use get_all_planets for a simple list' or 'use this only when you need detailed stats'. The guidance is inferred from the tool name and purpose rather than explicit.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description must convey behavioral traits. It does describe the return payload in detail, but does not disclose any side effects, permissions, rate limits, or error behavior. The word 'Fetch' implies a safe read, but this is not explicitly stated.

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 a single, detailed sentence that packs a lot of information about the return structure. It is not overly verbose, but the long parenthetical list could be broken into clearer sub-bullets for readability. Still, it is appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description fully enumerates all return fields and nested subfields (planet details, election end, tactical actions with effects and costs). This provides complete context for what the tool returns, making it alone sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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 has zero parameters, so the schema is trivially complete. The description adds context about what the tool returns, which is useful given there is no output schema, but no parameter-level semantics are needed.

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 the tool fetches current Democracy Space Station (DSS) details, with a specific verb and resource. It further details what is returned, making it easily distinguishable from sibling tools like get_planet_details or get_all_planets.

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. There is no mention of conditions, exclusions, or comparison to sibling tools, so the agent is left to infer usage solely from the description.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains that returned items include title, URL, published date (relative time), and content, and documents the `limit` default and maximum. It doesn't mention edge cases like error handling or sorting, but for a simple read-only fetch tool, this is adequate.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core function, and every sentence adds necessary detail. It's concise and well-structured with no redundant filler.

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?

The tool is simple with one optional parameter and no output schema. The description covers the return fields and the parameter's behavior, making it fully complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool without ambiguity.

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 the schema already fully describes the `limit` parameter (default 10, max 30). The description repeats the same information without adding new semantics, so it provides no additional value beyond the schema.

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 states 'Fetch the latest Steam news for Helldivers 2', which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools that deal with game state (planets, assignments, war status) by focusing on external news items.

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?

The description implicitly defines usage: use this when you need recent Steam news about Helldivers 2. It doesn't explicitly list exclusions or alternatives, but the niche is so distinct from the sibling tools that the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It describes the tool as a 'Fetch' operation, implying read-only behavior, and exhaustively lists the response contents. However, it does not explicitly state side effects, authentication requirements, rate limits, or performance characteristics. The read-only nature is only inferred from the verb, which is acceptable but not fully transparent.

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 front-loaded with the main purpose, but then runs on as one very long sentence enumerating every field and nested object. The detail is relevant, but the lack of structure (e.g., bullet points or separate paragraphs) makes it harder to parse quickly. It is adequately sized but could be better organized.

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?

Without an output schema, the description compensates by thoroughly enumerating the war statistics and all fields of active planets, including event details, attacking planets, and region data. It defines 'active planets' and 'active event information.' The only gap is the absence of exact JSON property names, but the semantic coverage is strong for a complex, zero-parameter tool.

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, and the schema confirms this with an empty properties object. The description adds no parameter semantics because none are needed. Per the baseline rule for 0-parameter tools, a score of 4 is appropriate.

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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Fetch the current war status and active planets.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on war statistics and active planets, not planet lists, assignments, or dispatches.

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?

The description communicates a clear context (retrieving war status), but it provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_all_planets or get_planet_details. It does not mention exclusions or preferred scenarios, so the guidance is implied rather than stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.