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 position data, implying a read-only operation, but does not specify if it requires authentication, has rate limits, returns real-time or cached data, or handles errors. 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 a single, clear sentence that is front-loaded and wastes no words. It efficiently conveys the core functionality without unnecessary elaboration, making it easy to parse and understand 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 of a tool that retrieves positional data in a game/world context, with no annotations, no output schema, and low parameter documentation, the description is insufficient. It does not cover return values, error conditions, or interaction with other tools, leaving the agent with incomplete context for effective 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 0%, with two parameters (partyId and sessionId) undocumented in the schema. The description mentions 'a party' but does not explain what partyId represents, the format of sessionId, or why sessionId is optional. It adds minimal semantic value beyond the parameter names, failing to compensate for the low schema coverage.

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 with a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('current position of a party on the world map'), making it immediately understandable. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_party' or 'get_party_context', which might also provide positional information, 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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as 'get_party' or 'get_region_map', which might offer related information. It lacks context on prerequisites, timing, or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer usage based on the tool name alone.

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