rpg-mcp

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 discloses the maximum batch size (20 characters) and minimum requirement (name), which are useful behavioral constraints. However, it lacks details on permissions, mutation effects (e.g., whether characters are saved permanently), error handling, or response format, leaving gaps for a write operation.

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, starting with the core purpose and usage guidelines. The examples are detailed but relevant for illustrating parameter usage. It could be slightly more concise by integrating example details into a shorter format, but overall, it avoids unnecessary fluff and is well-structured.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description provides good context on purpose, usage, and parameters through examples. However, it lacks information on behavioral aspects like error handling, permissions, or what the tool returns, which are important for a write operation. It is adequate but has clear gaps in completeness.

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 50%, with only the 'characters' array documented. The description adds significant value by explaining the 'characters' parameter through two detailed examples, showing required fields (name) and optional ones (class, race, etc.), and clarifying the structure beyond the schema. It compensates well for the coverage gap, though it does not mention the 'sessionId' parameter.

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 creates multiple characters at once, specifying the verb ('Create multiple characters') and resource ('characters'). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'create_character' (singular) and 'batch_create_npcs' by emphasizing bulk creation for groups like parties or enemy squads, making the purpose specific and differentiated.

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 states when to use this tool: for generating groups such as a party, squad of enemies, or NPCs. It provides a maximum limit (20 characters per call) and a minimum requirement (each character needs a name), offering clear usage context without exclusions, though it does not mention alternatives like 'create_character' for single creations.

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