rpg-mcp

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions 'modify the world map' implying mutation, but lacks details on permissions, reversibility, side effects, or response format. The example hints at input structure but doesn't clarify behavioral traits like error handling or map state changes.

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 appropriately sized and front-loaded: two sentences with zero waste. The first states the purpose, the second provides usage guidance and an example, each earning its place efficiently.

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 complexity (modification tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 67% schema coverage), the description is moderately complete. It covers purpose and usage but lacks behavioral details and parameter explanations, leaving gaps for a mutation tool that could affect game state significantly.

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 67% (2 of 3 parameters described), so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it implies 'worldId' and 'script' are used in the example but doesn't explain 'sessionId' or provide deeper semantics like DSL syntax or validation rules.

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 ('Apply DSL commands') and resource ('modify the world map'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from siblings like 'update_terrain' or 'generate_terrain_patch' by specifying DSL-based modifications, though not explicitly contrasting them.

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 explicitly provides usage guidance by stating 'Use find_valid_poi_location first for structure placement,' which names a specific sibling tool as a prerequisite. This gives clear context for when to use this tool versus alternatives.

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