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 mentions the return values ('Returns trained level, active level, and SP per skill'), which adds useful context. However, it fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether this is a read-only operation. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, stating the core purpose in the first clause. Both sentences earn their place by explaining functionality and return values. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating usage notes from output details, but it remains efficient with no wasted words.

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 (3 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description is partially complete. It covers the basic purpose and return values, but lacks details on authentication, error handling, or sibling tool differentiation. Without annotations or output schema, the description should do more to compensate, but it provides a minimal viable explanation.

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 all three parameters. The description adds some semantic context by mentioning filtering ('filter by skill group') and checking ('check specific skills'), which aligns with the schema but doesn't provide additional details like format examples or constraints. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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: 'Get character skills' specifies the verb and resource. It distinguishes from some siblings like 'eve_character_info' or 'eve_character_skillqueue' by focusing specifically on skills, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with all skill-related tools like 'eve_pi_skills'. The description is specific but not fully differentiated from all siblings.

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 through phrases like 'Can filter by skill group or check specific skills', suggesting when to use optional parameters. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'eve_character_info' (which might include skills) or 'eve_pi_skills' (for planetary interaction skills). No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context partially implied.

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