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 only states the basic action ('Retrieve') without mentioning permissions, rate limits, response format, or any side effects. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is insufficient to inform the agent about how the tool behaves beyond its minimal 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 extremely concise with a single sentence that directly states the tool's purpose. There is no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration, making it front-loaded and easy to parse 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 implied by sibling tools (e.g., multiple world-related retrieval tools), the lack of annotations, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation, the description is inadequate. It doesn't provide enough context to help an agent understand how this tool fits into the broader system or what to expect from its 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 input schema has 2 parameters with 0% description coverage, meaning neither 'id' nor 'sessionId' are documented in the schema. The description mentions 'by ID' which hints at the 'id' parameter, but it doesn't explain what a 'world ID' is, what format it uses, or what 'sessionId' is for. This leaves significant gaps in parameter understanding.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('a world by ID'), making the purpose understandable. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_world_state' or 'get_world_map_overview', which also retrieve world-related information, so it doesn't fully distinguish itself from alternatives.

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. With many sibling tools like 'get_world_state' and 'get_world_map_overview', there's no indication of what makes this tool unique or when it should be preferred over other world-retrieval tools.

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