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 full burden. It mentions the conditional behavior ('if character is currently in a fleet'), which is useful, but doesn't disclose other traits like authentication requirements, error handling, rate limits, or what happens if the character isn't in a fleet. For a 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, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and condition without any wasted words. It's front-loaded with the main action and appropriately sized for the tool's simplicity.

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 (0 parameters, no output schema), the description is minimally adequate but incomplete. It lacks details on authentication, return format, error cases, or how it relates to sibling tools. With no annotations or output schema, more context would be helpful for an agent 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?

The input schema has 0 parameters with 100% coverage, so no parameter documentation is needed. The description doesn't add parameter information, which is appropriate here. A baseline of 4 is applied as per rules for 0 parameters, since the schema fully covers the absence of inputs.

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 as 'Get fleet information' with the condition 'if character is currently in a fleet', which is a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'eve_location_current' or 'eve_character_info', which might provide related but different information.

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 context ('if character is currently in a fleet'), suggesting it should only be used when the character is fleet-joined, but it doesn't provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance or name alternatives among siblings. This leaves some ambiguity about edge cases or fallback tools.

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