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 discloses that the action is destructive (removal from local store) and mentions the consequence (need to re-authenticate), which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't cover other important aspects like whether this requires specific permissions, if the removal is permanent or reversible, or what the response looks like (e.g., success/failure message).

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 that are front-loaded with the core action and follow with important consequence information. Every word earns its place—there's no redundancy, fluff, or unnecessary elaboration. It efficiently communicates both what the tool does and when to use it.

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 moderate complexity (a destructive operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is reasonably complete. It covers the purpose, usage guidelines, and key behavioral consequence. However, it lacks details on permissions, response format, or error handling, which would be helpful for a mutation tool. The high schema coverage and clear purpose partially compensate for these gaps.

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 input schema has 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'character' documented as 'Character name or character ID to remove'. The description doesn't add any additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, but with 100% coverage and only one parameter, the baseline is high. A score of 4 reflects that the schema already does the heavy lifting, and the description doesn't need to compensate.

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 specific action ('Remove a character from the local store') and resource ('character'), distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'eve_auth_list_characters' (which lists characters) and 'eve_auth_login' (which adds/authenticates characters). The verb 'remove' is precise and unambiguous.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('Remove a character from the local store') and provides a clear alternative for re-adding a character ('They will need to re-authenticate via eve_auth_login'), directly naming the sibling tool. This gives the agent clear guidance on the tool's role in the authentication workflow.

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