EVE Online Companion MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states it's a list operation, implying read-only behavior, but doesn't cover critical aspects like authentication requirements, rate limits, pagination, or response format. For a tool that likely requires character context, this omission is significant, though not contradictory.

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, clear sentence with zero wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core action ('List all saved ship fittings'), making it easy to parse. Every part of the sentence contributes directly to understanding the tool's purpose, achieving optimal conciseness.

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 (1 optional parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is minimally adequate. It covers the basic purpose but lacks context on authentication, output structure, or integration with sibling tools. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral details would improve completeness, but it's not entirely inadequate for a simple list tool.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'ship_type' documented as 'Filter by ship type name'. The description doesn't add any parameter details beyond this, such as examples or filtering logic. Since the schema fully covers the parameter, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the description doesn't compensate but also doesn't need to.

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 action ('List') and resource ('all saved ship fittings for the character'), making the purpose evident. It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'eve_fitting_save' and 'eve_fitting_analyze' by focusing on listing rather than saving or analyzing fittings. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from other list tools (e.g., 'eve_assets_search'), which prevents a perfect score.

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., character authentication), compare to similar tools like 'eve_assets_search' for broader asset listings, or specify use cases (e.g., inventory management vs. fitting optimization). This lack of context leaves the agent with minimal usage direction.

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