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 mentions the route preferences but doesn't disclose critical behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, if it requires authentication, potential rate limits, error conditions (e.g., invalid system names), or what the output looks like (e.g., list of systems, distance). For a tool with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose and immediately explains the key feature (route preferences). Every word earns its place with no redundancy or unnecessary details, making it easy to parse 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 of route calculation with security considerations, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks information on authentication requirements, error handling, output format (e.g., step-by-step route, total jumps), and behavioral constraints. For a tool that likely interacts with game data and has safety implications, this leaves too much unspecified.

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 parameters (origin, destination, preference) with descriptions and enum values. The description adds minimal value by hinting at the meaning of preference options ('secure (highsec), and insecure (lowsec/null)'), but doesn't provide additional syntax or format details beyond what the schema offers. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 specific action ('Calculate route') and resource ('between two systems'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on route planning rather than authentication, market, character info, or other EVE Online operations. It's precise and unambiguous.

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 clear context for when to use this tool by specifying the three route preferences (shortest, secure, insecure), which helps the agent choose based on safety vs. speed trade-offs. However, it doesn't explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternatives among siblings, though the distinct purpose makes alternatives less relevant.

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