rpg-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions what the tool returns but doesn't address important behavioral aspects like whether this is a read-only operation, permission requirements, rate limits, or how the aggregation works. The description is insufficient for a tool with 6 parameters and 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 efficiently structured in a single sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does, though it could potentially benefit from slightly more detail given the tool's complexity.

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?

For a tool with 6 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficiently complete. It doesn't explain the aggregation methodology, return format, error conditions, or how the various filtering parameters interact. The description leaves too many behavioral questions unanswered 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 schema description coverage is 67%, and the description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what's in the schema. It mentions the types of content returned (which maps to the 'includeTypes' parameter), but doesn't explain parameter interactions, defaults, or usage patterns. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('aggregated narrative context for LLM prompt injection'), and specifies the types of content returned (plot threads, canonical moments, NPC voices, foreshadowing). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_narrative_context' or 'search_narrative_notes'.

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 like 'get_narrative_context' or 'search_narrative_notes'. There's no mention of prerequisites, appropriate contexts, or exclusions for usage.

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