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 retrieves relationship status, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't clarify if it requires specific permissions, has side effects, or details the return format (e.g., structured data, error handling). For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is inadequate.

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 that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose without unnecessary words. It's front-loaded and wastes no space, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a tool that likely returns complex relationship data. It doesn't explain what 'familiarity' and 'disposition' entail, how the data is structured, or potential error conditions. For a read operation in a rich gaming context, more detail is needed.

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 doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the input schema provides. Schema description coverage is 67% (two parameters described, one not), but the description doesn't compensate by explaining the purpose of 'sessionId' or clarifying the semantics of 'characterId' and 'npcId'. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 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 tool's purpose: 'Get relationship status (familiarity, disposition) between a PC and NPC.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('relationship status'), and key attributes ('familiarity, disposition'), making it easy to understand what the tool does. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_npc_context' or 'update_npc_relationship', which prevents 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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, context (e.g., during gameplay, for narrative purposes), or exclusions. Given the many sibling tools, including 'get_npc_context' and 'update_npc_relationship', this lack of differentiation is a significant gap.

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