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 types (tank stats, DPS estimates, capacitor info) and the use of Dogma attributes, but lacks details on behavioral traits such as error handling, performance characteristics, or any limitations (e.g., rate limits, authentication needs). This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 core functionality. It avoids unnecessary words and directly states the action, inputs, and outputs, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured to explicitly separate input and output details.

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 provides basic context but is incomplete. It covers the purpose and return types but lacks details on behavioral aspects and output structure. For a tool with 2 parameters and no structured output information, this leaves gaps that could hinder an agent's ability to use it effectively.

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 ('fitting_name' and 'eft_string'). The description adds minimal value by mentioning these two input methods but doesn't provide additional semantics like format details or usage context beyond what the schema states. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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: analyzing a fitting by name or EFT string to return tank stats, DPS estimates, and capacitor info. It specifies the verb ('analyze') and resource ('fitting'), but doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'eve_fitting_list' or 'eve_fitting_save', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 5.

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 by mentioning two input methods (name or EFT string), but it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'eve_fitting_list' or 'eve_killmail_analyze'. No exclusions or prerequisites are stated, leaving some ambiguity for the agent.

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