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 what the tool 'shows' (fitting, attackers, damage breakdown) which gives some behavioral insight, but doesn't disclose critical traits like whether it's read-only (implied but not stated), requires authentication, has rate limits, or what format the analysis output takes. For a tool with no annotations, this leaves important behavioral aspects unclear.

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 extremely concise with just one sentence that efficiently communicates the core functionality. Every word earns its place: 'Analyze' (action), 'specific killmail' (resource), 'by URL or ID' (input method), and 'shows fitting of victim, attackers involved, damage breakdown' (output content). No wasted words or redundancy.

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, no output schema, and 3 parameters with good schema coverage, the description provides basic completeness for a read-oriented analysis tool. It covers what the tool does and what it shows, but lacks details about authentication requirements, error conditions, output format, or integration with other tools. For a tool analyzing game combat data, more context about data sources and limitations would be 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 (killmail_url, killmail_id, killmail_hash) with their types and descriptions. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema by mentioning 'by URL or ID' (though hash is omitted) and implying these are alternative ways to specify a killmail. This meets the baseline for high schema coverage.

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: 'Analyze a specific killmail by URL or ID' with specific resources (killmail) and actions (analyze, shows fitting of victim, attackers, damage breakdown). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'eve_fitting_analyze' by focusing on killmail analysis rather than general fitting analysis, but doesn't explicitly contrast with other killmail-related tools (none listed).

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 mentions analyzing killmails but doesn't specify prerequisites, context (e.g., after obtaining a killmail ID from another source), or when other tools might be more appropriate. With sibling tools covering various EVE Online functions, this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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