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. While it states the search functionality, it lacks critical behavioral details such as whether this requires authentication, rate limits, pagination behavior, error handling, or what the output format looks like (especially important since there's no output schema). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how to properly invoke and interpret results.

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 functionality ('Search for any EVE entity by name') followed by a comma-separated list of entity types. Every word earns its place with zero waste or redundancy.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete for a search tool with 2 parameters. It doesn't explain what the search returns (e.g., list of matches with IDs/names), how results are ordered, whether it supports partial matching, or any authentication requirements. For a tool that likely returns structured data, this leaves the agent with insufficient context to use it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents both parameters ('query' and 'categories'). The description mentions 'by name' which slightly clarifies the 'query' parameter's purpose, but doesn't add meaningful semantic value beyond what the schema provides. The baseline score of 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 tool's purpose: 'Search for any EVE entity by name' with specific entity types listed (characters, corporations, alliances, systems, types, stations). This provides a specific verb ('search') and resource ('EVE entity'), though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'eve_wiki_search' which also searches but for different content.

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_wiki_search' (for wiki content) or 'eve_assets_search' (for asset searches), nor does it specify any prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual triggers for choosing this search tool over others.

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