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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'manually create,' implying a write operation, but does not specify permissions, side effects (e.g., if it affects game state or loot tables), or response format. For a mutation tool with 10 parameters and no annotations, this is a significant gap in 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, efficient sentence that is front-loaded with the core action and resource. It avoids unnecessary words and gets straight to the point, making it highly concise and well-structured for quick understanding.

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 (10 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is inadequate. It does not explain the tool's behavior, return values, or how parameters interact (e.g., the relationship between 'characterId' and 'characterName'). For a tool with rich input schema and no structured support, more descriptive context 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 low at 20%, with only 'creatureType' and 'cr' having descriptions. The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond the schema, failing to compensate for the coverage gap. For example, it does not explain the purpose of 'position', 'worldId', or other parameters, leaving their semantics unclear.

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 ('Manually create') and the resource ('a corpse for a dead character'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'create_character' or 'advance_corpse_decay', which would require more context about when to use each.

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, such as 'create_character' for living characters or 'harvest_corpse' for interacting with existing corpses. It lacks explicit context, prerequisites, or exclusions, 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.