EVE Online Companion MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It states the tool interacts with a running EVE client via a linked character, implying real-time game action, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., in-game consequences), rate limits, or error handling. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient.

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 without unnecessary details. Every word earns its place, making it appropriately sized and well-structured for quick comprehension.

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 this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks critical context such as what the tool returns (e.g., success/failure), error conditions, or behavioral nuances (e.g., whether it requires specific in-game states). For a 4-parameter tool affecting game state, more completeness is needed.

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 fully documents all 4 parameters. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what's in the schema (e.g., it doesn't explain system_name format or interactions between clear_other and add_to_beginning). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema handles parameter documentation adequately.

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 action ('Set autopilot destination') and the target ('in-game'), specifying it uses the linked character's running EVE client. It distinguishes from siblings like eve_route_plan (planning vs. setting) and eve_location_current (checking vs. setting), though not explicitly. However, it lacks explicit sibling differentiation, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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 like eve_route_plan for route planning or other navigation tools. It mentions the linked character context but offers no explicit when/when-not rules or prerequisites, resulting in minimal usage guidance.

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