EVE Online Companion MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool does ('Search character assets') and what it shows ('location and quantity'), but lacks critical details such as authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination behavior, error handling, or whether it's read-only or mutative. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded: a single sentence that efficiently conveys the core functionality. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing. It's appropriately sized for a search tool with clear parameters.

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 tool's complexity (search with filtering), lack of annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral aspects like authentication needs, result format, or error conditions. While the schema handles parameters well, the description fails to compensate for missing context, making it inadequate for safe and effective use by an AI agent.

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%, meaning all parameters are documented in the schema. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, mentioning 'item name or type' (hinting at the 'search' parameter) and 'location' (hinting at 'location_name'), but doesn't provide additional context like search syntax, case sensitivity, or default behaviors. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Search character assets by item name or type. Shows location and quantity.' It specifies the verb ('Search'), resource ('character assets'), and scope (search criteria and displayed information). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'eve_search' or 'eve_type_info', which might have overlapping functionality.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention sibling tools like 'eve_search' (general search) or 'eve_type_info' (item details), nor does it specify prerequisites such as authentication or character selection. Usage context is implied but not explicitly stated.

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