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 states the tool generates a world but doesn't explain what 'procedural' entails, whether this is a creation or modification operation, if it requires a session to be initialized, what the output looks like, or any side effects (e.g., overwriting existing worlds). For a tool with 7 parameters and no annotation coverage, 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 appropriately concise with two sentences: one stating the purpose and key parameters, and one providing an example. It's front-loaded with the core functionality. However, the example could be more efficiently integrated, and it lacks structural elements like bullet points for clarity with multiple parameters.

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 (7 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain the tool's behavior in context (e.g., how it relates to 'create_world' or session management), misses key parameter semantics, and provides no output information. For a world-generation tool in an RPG system, this leaves too many unknowns for effective agent use.

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?

The description mentions 'seed, width, and height parameters' and provides an example, adding some context beyond the schema. However, with high schema description coverage (86%), the schema already documents most parameters well. The description doesn't explain the purpose of 'landRatio', 'temperatureOffset', or 'moistureOffset', nor does it clarify the role of 'sessionId', leaving gaps for the 14% of parameters not covered in the schema.

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: 'Generate a new procedural RPG world' with specific parameters. It uses a specific verb ('generate') and resource ('RPG world'), making the action clear. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'create_world' or 'generate_terrain_patch', leaving some ambiguity about when to choose this over alternatives.

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. It doesn't mention prerequisites, context (e.g., whether this initializes a session or modifies an existing world), or compare it to sibling tools like 'create_world' or 'generate_terrain_patch'. The example helps with syntax but doesn't address usage scenarios.

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