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 performs a save operation (implying mutation/write), but doesn't disclose critical behaviors: whether authentication is required, potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing fittings), error handling, or response format. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 action ('Save a new fitting') and includes essential context ('to character', 'from EFT format'). There is zero waste or redundancy, making it highly concise and well-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 the tool's complexity (a mutation operation with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication requirements, behavioral traits (e.g., idempotency, error cases), and what the tool returns. For a save tool in this context, more detail is needed to be fully helpful.

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 (eft_string, name, description) with clear descriptions. The description adds no additional meaning beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain EFT format details or naming constraints). 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 action ('Save a new fitting') and the target ('to character'), with specificity about the input format ('from EFT format'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'eve_fitting_list' (list vs. save) and 'eve_fitting_analyze' (analyze vs. save), though it doesn't explicitly name these alternatives. The purpose is unambiguous but could be slightly more differentiated.

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., authentication status), compare to sibling tools like 'eve_fitting_list' or 'eve_fitting_analyze', or specify scenarios where saving a fitting is appropriate. Usage is implied by the action but lacks explicit context.

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