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 what information is returned (stats, description, Dogma attributes) but lacks details on behavioral aspects such as rate limits, authentication requirements, error handling, or data freshness. The description is accurate but incomplete for behavioral 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 a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose, scope, and output. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or vague phrasing, making it easy to understand at a glance.

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 low complexity (1 parameter, no nested objects) and lack of output schema, the description adequately covers the basics but could benefit from more context on return values or usage nuances. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in behavioral and output details.

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 parameter 'type_name' clearly documented in the schema. The description does not add any additional semantic context beyond what the schema provides, such as format examples or validation rules. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 verb ('Get detailed info') and resource ('any EVE item type'), with specific examples (ship, module, ammo) and output details (stats, description, Dogma attributes). It effectively distinguishes itself from sibling tools like eve_search or eve_wiki_article by focusing on item metadata rather than searching or wiki 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 implies usage for retrieving detailed information about EVE item types, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like eve_search or eve_wiki_article. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving the context somewhat open-ended.

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