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 states the tool retrieves location data but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or the format of returned data. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context for a tool that likely interacts with user-specific data.

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 and front-loaded: a single sentence with no wasted words. It directly states the tool's purpose and key outputs, making it easy to parse and understand quickly.

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 complexity (a tool that likely requires character context and returns location data), no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain authentication needs, return format, or error handling, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to use the tool 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 description adds no parameter information beyond what the schema provides, but schema description coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'as_character' is fully described in the schema). With 0 parameters mentioned in the description, the baseline is 4, as the schema adequately documents the parameter without needing duplication.

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: 'Get current location' specifies the action and resource, followed by details about what location information is retrieved (solar system, station/structure, current ship type). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on location retrieval rather than assets, auth, fittings, etc., though it doesn't explicitly contrast with similar tools.

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., requiring character authentication), exclusions, or comparisons to other location-related tools (none are listed in siblings, but context about other methods isn't given). Usage is implied only by the tool's name and description.

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