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 the condition 'if they are dead,' which implies the tool may return null or an error for living characters, but it doesn't specify error handling, return format, or other behavioral traits like permissions or rate limits. This leaves significant gaps for a tool that likely involves data retrieval.

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: 'Get the corpse of a specific character (if they are dead).' It's front-loaded with the core purpose and includes a key condition without unnecessary words, making it appropriately sized and easy to parse.

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 of retrieving character-specific data, the lack of annotations, 0% schema description coverage, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'corpse' entails (e.g., inventory, decay state), how to handle missing data, or the return structure, leaving too many unknowns for effective tool 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 input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning the schema provides no semantic information. The description doesn't add any details about the parameters (characterId, sessionId), such as what they represent, their formats, or why sessionId might be optional. This fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation.

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: 'Get the corpse of a specific character (if they are dead).' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('corpse'), and condition ('if they are dead'), making it clear what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_corpse' or 'list_corpses_in_encounter,' which slightly reduces clarity.

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 guidelines through the condition 'if they are dead,' suggesting the tool should only be used when a character is deceased. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_corpse' or 'list_corpses_nearby,' nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions beyond the character's death status.

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