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. It implies a read-only operation ('Get'), but does not disclose behavioral traits such as permissions needed, rate limits, pagination, or what constitutes 'recent' (e.g., time-based or count-based). The description is minimal and lacks essential context for safe and effective use.

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 that front-loads the core purpose without unnecessary words. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though it could benefit from additional context to improve completeness.

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 tool has no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (67% coverage), the description is inadequate. It lacks details on return values, behavioral constraints, and usage guidelines, making it insufficient for a tool with 3 parameters in a complex server environment.

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?

Schema description coverage is 67% (2 out of 3 parameters have descriptions). The description does not add any meaning beyond the schema, as it does not explain parameters like 'characterId' or 'sessionId'. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the schema provides some documentation but the description does not compensate for gaps.

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 action ('Get') and resource ('recent conversation memories across all NPCs') with a specific purpose ('for context building'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like 'get_conversation_history' by focusing on memories across NPCs rather than a specific conversation history, though the distinction could be more explicit.

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_conversation_history' or 'get_narrative_context'. It mentions 'for context building', but this is vague and does not specify prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative scenarios with sibling tools.

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