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 states the tool checks status and shows information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns structured data, or handles errors. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant behavioral gaps.

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 concise sentences that front-load the core purpose ('Check authentication status') and immediately add key details ('Shows active char and token expiry'). Every word earns its place with no waste, making it easy to scan and understand quickly.

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 low complexity (0 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is adequate but incomplete. It covers what the tool does but lacks context on prerequisites (e.g., requires linked characters), return format, or error handling. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it meets a minimum viable level.

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%, so there are no parameters to document. The description doesn't need to compensate for any parameter gaps, and it appropriately focuses on the tool's purpose without redundant parameter explanations. A baseline of 4 is applied since no parameters exist.

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: 'Check authentication status for all linked characters' specifies the verb (check) and resource (authentication status), and 'Shows active char and token expiry' adds detail about what information is returned. It distinguishes from siblings like eve_auth_login (authentication initiation) and eve_auth_list_characters (listing characters), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives.

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 context by mentioning 'all linked characters' and 'active char', suggesting it's for monitoring authentication state rather than initiating or modifying it. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like eve_auth_list_characters (which might list characters without status details) or when not to use it (e.g., if no characters are linked).

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