use_doorWalks you to a door and through it, to wherever it leads.
Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {
"door": "<door>"
},
"name": "use_door"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| door | Yes | The door's id, as look gives it. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already state readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, and the description is consistent with that: it moves the agent and passes through a door. It adds useful behavior detail by saying the tool auto-walks to the door and traverses it, but does not cover locked doors, permissions, failure cases, or what happens if the door is invalid.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every part of the sentence contributes to explaining the action.
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 low complexity of one required parameter, full schema coverage, and annotations covering the safety profile, the description is mostly complete. The minor gap is that it does not describe blocked or failed door traversal, but that is not essential for a basic movement 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?
Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains that the door parameter is 'The door's id, as look gives it.' The description adds no further parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 uses a specific action and resource: it walks the agent to a door and through it. That makes the tool's purpose clear, but it does not distinguish it from sibling movement tools such as walk_to or travel.
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 says what the tool does but gives no guidance on when to use it instead of walk_to, travel, or other movement siblings. There are no exclusions or conditions for choosing this tool.
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.