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 mentions 'Fog of War' which hints at limited visibility or filtered data, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only operation, what data is returned (e.g., partial vs. full state), error conditions, or performance considerations. The description adds minimal context beyond the basic purpose.

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, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core purpose ('Get the world state') and efficiently adds qualifying details. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or 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 3 parameters with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns (e.g., structured data, limitations due to Fog of War), parameter usage, or behavioral aspects. For a state-retrieval tool in a complex strategy context, this leaves significant gaps.

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 0%, so the schema provides no parameter details. The description mentions 'specific nation' which relates to 'viewerNationId', but doesn't explain any parameters (worldId, viewerNationId, sessionId) or their semantics (e.g., format, purpose, how they affect the Fog of War). It fails 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 action ('Get') and resource ('world state'), and specifies the perspective ('from the perspective of a specific nation') with a contextual note about 'Fog of War for Grand Strategy'. It distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like 'get_world_state' by adding the nation-specific perspective, though it doesn't explicitly name that sibling for full differentiation.

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 implies usage when needing a nation-specific view with Fog of War applied, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_world_state' (which likely provides a full view) or other state-retrieval tools. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned, leaving usage context somewhat inferred.

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