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. It mentions 'active effects' and 'optional filtering', but fails to disclose critical behavioral traits such as whether this is a read-only operation, what permissions are needed, how results are formatted, or any rate limits. This is inadequate for a tool with 6 parameters and no output schema.

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 ('Get all active effects on a target') and adds a key detail ('with optional filtering'). There is no wasted verbiage, 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 complexity (6 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema), the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain return values, behavioral constraints, or parameter details, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to use this tool effectively in context with many siblings.

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 adds some context by implying filtering based on effect activity and category/source, but with 0% schema description coverage, it doesn't fully compensate. It hints at 'optional filtering' which relates to parameters like 'category' and 'source_type', but doesn't explain their enums or the meaning of 'target_type' and 'include_inactive'. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema lacks descriptions, and the description provides only partial semantic value.

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 ('Get') and resource ('all active effects on a target'), making the purpose evident. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential siblings like 'get_active_auras' or 'get_auras_affecting_character', which might handle similar effect/aura concepts, so it falls short of 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 minimal guidance with 'optional filtering' but lacks explicit when-to-use instructions, prerequisites, or alternatives. Given the many sibling tools, there's no mention of when to choose this over others like 'get_active_auras' or 'get_auras_affecting_character', leaving usage unclear.

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