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 describes what data is retrieved (layout details) but does not disclose behavioral traits such as authentication requirements, rate limits, error conditions, or whether it's a read-only operation. The description is informative but lacks critical operational context.

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, well-structured sentence that efficiently lists all key components (pins, extractors, factories, storage, links, routes) without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and provides specific details concisely.

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 and no output schema, the description provides good detail on what data is retrieved but lacks information on behavioral aspects (e.g., auth, errors) and return format. It is complete for a read operation in terms of content scope but incomplete for operational context, making it adequate but with gaps.

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 both parameters ('planet_id' and 'as_character'). The description does not add meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameter usage, constraints, or examples. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate since the schema provides adequate parameter information.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed colony layout for a specific planet'), and it distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the detailed content (pins, extractors, factories, storage, links, routes) that differentiates it from broader tools like 'eve_pi_colonies' or 'eve_pi_plan'.

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 specifying 'for a specific planet' and listing detailed components, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'eve_pi_colonies' (which likely lists colonies) or 'eve_pi_plan' (which might involve planning). No explicit exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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