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 verbosity levels and token ranges, which adds some context about output size. However, it doesn't describe what 'party context' includes (e.g., members, status, location), how the data is formatted, whether it's real-time or cached, or any permissions required. For a read operation with no annotations, this leaves significant gaps in understanding the tool's behavior.

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 extremely concise and front-loaded, consisting of just two sentences that directly state the purpose and key parameter details. Every word earns its place, with no wasted information or redundancy, 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 complexity (a read operation with 3 parameters and no output schema) and the lack of annotations, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'party context' entails, how the output is structured, or any behavioral nuances like error handling or data freshness. Without an output schema, the description should ideally provide more details about the return values, but it fails to do so, leaving the tool's functionality ambiguous.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter descriptions. The description adds some value by explaining the 'verbosity' parameter with token ranges for each enum value ('minimal (~150 tokens), standard (~400), or detailed (~800)'). However, it doesn't clarify the semantics of 'partyId' or 'sessionId', leaving two of the three parameters poorly explained. This partial compensation results in a baseline score.

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 party context for LLM prompts.' It specifies the verb ('Get') and resource ('party context'), and mentions the target use case ('for LLM prompts'). However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from its many siblings, such as 'get_party' or 'get_party_members', leaving some ambiguity about what specific context is provided.

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 mentions verbosity levels but doesn't explain why one would choose this tool over other party-related tools like 'get_party' or 'get_party_members', nor does it specify any prerequisites or exclusions for its use.

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