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. It describes a read-only list operation, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, how data is retrieved (e.g., from cache or live API), potential rate limits, or error conditions. The description is minimal and lacks context beyond the basic action.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the key action ('List all linked EVE characters') and adds specific details about the output. There is no wasted text, and it is appropriately sized for a simple tool with no 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 has no parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimal but complete for a basic list operation. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, data freshness, or output format, which could be important for an AI agent to use it correctly in context with sibling tools.

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 0 parameters, and schema description coverage is 100% (since there are no parameters to describe). The description does not need to add parameter semantics, and a baseline score of 4 is appropriate as it adequately covers the tool's purpose without unnecessary parameter details.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all linked EVE characters'), specifying the scope with details about what information is included (IDs, owner-account groupings, active status). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'eve_auth_status' or 'eve_character_info' by focusing on authentication-linked characters rather than general status or character details.

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 needing to view linked characters, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'eve_auth_status' (which might show authentication state) or 'eve_character_info' (which provides details on a specific character). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned.

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