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 'List all currently active auras', implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify whether it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns paginated results, or what format the properties are in. This is a significant gap for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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, clear sentence with no wasted words. It's front-loaded and efficiently communicates the core function without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (a read operation in a game/role-playing context), lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, behavioral constraints, or how it fits with sibling tools, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent.

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 input schema has one parameter ('sessionId') with 0% description coverage, but the tool description doesn't mention parameters at all. Since there's only one parameter and the tool likely operates in a session context, the lack of parameter info is less critical, but it doesn't add value beyond the schema. A baseline of 4 is appropriate given the low parameter count.

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 verb ('List') and resource ('all currently active auras and their properties'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_auras_affecting_character' or 'expire_auras', which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 (e.g., 'get_auras_affecting_character' for character-specific auras) or any prerequisites. It's a basic statement of function without contextual usage advice.

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