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 'full details' but does not specify what those details include, whether it's a read-only operation, error handling for invalid IDs, or any performance considerations. The description is too vague to inform the agent about the tool's behavior beyond basic retrieval, leaving significant gaps in understanding.

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: 'Get a single quest by ID with full details.' It is front-loaded with the core purpose, has no redundant words, and every part of the sentence contributes essential information. This makes it easy for an agent to parse quickly without unnecessary elaboration.

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 retrieval tool with 2 parameters (one required), 0% schema description coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is inadequate. It does not explain what 'full details' entails, how to handle the optional 'sessionId', or what the return format looks like. For a tool in a rich context with many siblings, more completeness is needed to guide 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 description mentions 'by ID', which aligns with the 'questId' parameter in the input schema, but does not explain the 'sessionId' parameter or provide any additional context beyond what the schema implies. With 0% schema description coverage, the description adds minimal value—it hints at the primary parameter but fails to compensate for the lack of schema documentation, resulting 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 a single quest by ID with full details.' It specifies the verb ('Get'), resource ('quest'), and scope ('single quest by ID with full details'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_quests' or 'get_quest_log'. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from similar retrieval tools like 'get_character' or 'get_world', which follow the same pattern, 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. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid quest ID), exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools like 'list_quests' for browsing or 'complete_quest' for updates. Without such context, the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone, which is insufficient for optimal selection.

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