Minesweeper MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the action but doesn't describe effects (e.g., whether it's reversible with 'unflag', if it affects game state like mine count, or if there are constraints like board limits). This leaves key behavioral traits unspecified for a mutation tool.

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 directly states the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded with the core action, 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 a game interaction tool with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter coverage, the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral details, error conditions, or integration with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an agent to operate 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 0%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It mentions 'a cell' but doesn't clarify what 'row' and 'col' represent (e.g., zero-indexed coordinates, board boundaries). This adds minimal semantic value beyond the bare schema.

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 ('Place a flag') and the target ('at a cell on the Minesweeper board'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'unflag' or 'click', which would require mentioning that this marks a cell as potentially containing a mine rather than revealing it or removing a flag.

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 'click' or 'unflag'. It lacks context about game state prerequisites (e.g., only on unrevealed cells) or strategic advice, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name alone.

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