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 tool can fetch both private (linked alts) and public data, which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or what happens if both parameters are provided. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves gaps in behavioral understanding.

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: the first states the purpose and enumerates returned data, the second provides usage guidance. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description does well by specifying the data fields returned and parameter usage. However, it doesn't describe the return format (e.g., structured object vs list) or potential authentication needs for private data. For a tool with 2 parameters and rich functionality, it's mostly complete but could address behavioral aspects more fully.

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%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds meaningful semantics by explaining the purpose of each parameter ('linked alts' vs 'public info') and noting that 'as_character' defaults to active. This provides context beyond the schema's technical descriptions, though it doesn't add syntax or format 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 ('Get') and resource ('character overview'), then enumerates specific data fields returned (name, corporation, alliance, etc.). It distinguishes this tool from siblings like 'eve_intel_character' (which likely provides different intel data) and 'eve_character_skills' (which focuses on skills only).

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 provides when-to-use guidance: 'Use "as_character" to query one of your linked alts; use "character_name" to look up someone else's public info.' This clarifies the two distinct use cases and parameter selection, addressing alternatives implicitly by explaining the purpose of each parameter.

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