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 it's a read operation ('Get'), implying it's likely non-destructive, but doesn't specify permissions, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output includes (e.g., scroll properties, usability status). This leaves significant gaps for a tool with potential complexity.

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 with no wasted words. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and efficiently conveys the essential information without unnecessary elaboration, making it highly concise and well-structured.

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 retrieving detailed scroll information in a game context, the description is insufficient. With no annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, it fails to address key aspects like return values (e.g., scroll stats, effects), error handling, or how it differs from similar tools. This leaves the agent with inadequate 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?

Schema description coverage is 50%, with 'scrollItemId' documented but 'sessionId' lacking a description. The tool description doesn't add any parameter details beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the format of 'scrollItemId' or the purpose of 'sessionId'. Since schema coverage is moderate, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate, but no extra value is added.

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 verb ('Get') and resource ('detailed information about a spell scroll item'), making the purpose explicit. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_item' or 'identify_scroll' which might also retrieve scroll information, so it doesn't reach the highest 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 like 'get_item' or 'check_scroll_usability'. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as needing a valid scroll ID or session, and doesn't mention any exclusions or specific scenarios for its use.

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