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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'authenticated character,' implying some authentication requirement, but doesn't specify what authentication entails (e.g., tokens, permissions) or other behavioral traits like rate limits, error handling, or response format. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 concise and front-loaded, starting with the core purpose in the first clause. The list of skills is specific and relevant, adding necessary detail without redundancy. However, the lack of usage guidelines or behavioral details means it could be more informative while remaining efficient, slightly reducing its structural completeness.

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 moderate complexity (checking specific skills with authentication) and the absence of annotations and output schema, the description is partially complete. It specifies the skills checked and hints at authentication, but lacks details on output format, error cases, or integration with sibling tools. This makes it adequate for basic understanding but insufficient for robust agent operation without additional context.

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%, with the single parameter 'as_character' well-documented in the schema as 'Linked character (name or ID) — defaults to active.' The description adds no additional parameter information beyond this, such as examples or constraints. Given the high schema coverage, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate, as the schema adequately handles parameter semantics without extra description input.

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: 'Check Planetary Industry relevant skills for the authenticated character' followed by a specific list of skills. This includes a verb ('Check') and resource ('Planetary Industry relevant skills'), making the function unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'eve_character_skills' which might provide broader skill information, leaving room for improvement in sibling distinction.

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 sibling tools like 'eve_character_skills' (which might list all skills) or 'eve_pi_colonies' (which might relate to PI operations), nor does it specify prerequisites or contexts for usage. This lack of comparative or contextual advice limits the agent's ability to choose appropriately among available tools.

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