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 discloses that it lists colonies and shows specific fields, which is useful. However, it does not mention behavioral traits like whether it requires specific permissions, rate limits, pagination, or error handling. The description adds basic context but lacks depth on operational behavior.

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, dense sentence that efficiently conveys purpose, scope, and output fields without waste. It is front-loaded with the main action ('List all PI colonies') and follows with specific details, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 reasonably complete. It covers what the tool does and the data returned. However, it lacks details on authentication requirements, error cases, or output format specifics, which would be helpful for an agent. With no output schema, some additional context on return structure could improve completeness.

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 1 parameter with 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents it well. The description does not add parameter-specific information, but with only one optional parameter and high schema coverage, the baseline is strong. The description compensates by clarifying the overall output semantics (e.g., fields like 'upgrade level'), though not directly about the parameter.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all Planetary Industry (PI) colonies for the authenticated character'), distinguishing it from siblings like 'eve_pi_colony_detail' (which likely shows details for a specific colony) and 'eve_pi_plan' (which might involve planning). It specifies the exact data fields returned (planet name, type, system, upgrade level, pin count, last update), making the purpose highly specific.

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 by stating it lists colonies 'for the authenticated character,' suggesting it requires character authentication. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'eve_pi_colony_detail' or provide exclusions (e.g., if no colonies exist). The context is clear but lacks explicit guidance on alternatives or edge cases.

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