hide_avatarHide the avatar window. The player defers this while the avatar is speaking, so it can take a moment.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "hide_avatar"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond the annotations (which only say this is not read-only, not destructive, and not open-world), the description discloses a real behavioral trait: the player defers the hide request while the avatar is speaking, so completion can be delayed. That is exactly the kind of async caveat an agent needs and cannot get from structured fields. It stops short of saying whether the hidden state persists or what the call returns when deferred.
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?
Two short sentences with no filler: the action is stated first and the timing caveat follows immediately. Every sentence earns its place, and nothing is buried or repeated from 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?
For a no-parameter, no-output-schema toggle, the description covers the action and its one meaningful timing nuance, which is enough to call it correctly. It could be slightly more complete by noting that show_avatar reverses it and whether the hidden state survives across sessions.
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 no parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Nothing in the description conflicts with 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 gives a specific verb plus resource ('Hide the avatar window'), which is unambiguous and distinguishable from the obvious inverse, show_avatar. It doesn't explicitly name or route to any sibling, but for a zero-parameter UI toggle the purpose is fully legible.
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: it is a toggle-style action an agent would call when the avatar's window should be taken out of view. There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance, no mention of show_avatar as the way back, and no statement of prerequisites.
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.