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 states 'Define a new type of item' which implies a write/mutation operation, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, if templates are reusable across sessions, what happens on duplicate names, or any rate limits. The example adds minimal context.

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 with zero waste. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a helpful example. Every word earns its place.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, 0% schema coverage), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential details for a mutation tool: parameter meanings, behavioral constraints, output expectations, and differentiation from siblings. The example is insufficient to bridge these gaps.

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. It adds no parameter semantics beyond the example 'Iron Sword' hinting at the 'name' parameter. The 7 parameters (name, description, type, weight, value, properties, sessionId) are undocumented in the description, leaving key details like 'type' enum values or 'sessionId' purpose unexplained.

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 ('Define') and resource ('new type of item'), with an example ('Iron Sword') that clarifies it's about creating templates rather than instances. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_item' or 'create_character' which might create actual items/characters versus templates.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., session context), when not to use it, or how it relates to sibling tools like 'create_item' or 'list_templates'.

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