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 that the secret is 'DM-only' and the AI narrates without revealing, which gives some behavioral context (confidentiality and AI role). However, it lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., if creation affects game state), rate limits, or response format, leaving significant gaps 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 front-loads the core purpose and includes key behavioral context. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information, making it highly concise and 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 the tool's complexity (13 parameters, mutation operation) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient. It covers purpose and basic AI behavior but misses critical details like what happens after creation, error conditions, or how secrets integrate with other tools (e.g., 'reveal_secret'), leaving the agent with incomplete guidance.

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 high (92%), so the baseline is 3. The description doesn't add specific parameter details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it doesn't explain 'worldId' or 'leakPatterns' further). It mentions general categories (NPC, location, item, plot) which loosely map to the 'type' parameter but doesn't enhance schema information significantly.

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's purpose: 'Create a DM-only secret' with specific examples (NPC, location, item, plot) and explains the AI's role in narration without revealing. It uses a specific verb ('Create') and resource ('secret'), though it doesn't explicitly distinguish from sibling tools like 'update_secret' or 'delete_secret'.

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 implies usage context by specifying 'DM-only' and that the AI should narrate around it without revealing, which suggests when to use it (for hidden game elements). However, it doesn't provide explicit alternatives (e.g., vs. 'update_secret') or exclusions (e.g., when not to create a secret vs. using other tools).

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