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 states the tool lists fences with optional filtering, but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as pagination, sorting, rate limits, authentication needs, or what 'registered' entails. For a list operation with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how the tool behaves.

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 ('List all registered fences') and adds optional functionality ('optionally filtered by faction'). There is no wasted verbiage, making it appropriately sized 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 no annotations, 0% schema coverage, two parameters, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It covers the basic purpose but lacks details on behavior, parameter usage, return values, and context—critical for a tool in a complex system with many siblings. More information is needed 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 0%, so the description must compensate for two undocumented parameters. It mentions 'optionally filtered by faction,' which hints at the 'factionId' parameter's purpose, but doesn't explain 'sessionId' or provide details on parameter formats, constraints, or interactions. This adds minimal value beyond the schema.

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 ('List') and resource ('all registered fences'), making the purpose understandable. It distinguishes from the sibling 'get_fence' by indicating this lists multiple fences rather than retrieving a single one, though it doesn't explicitly contrast with other list tools like 'list_characters' or 'list_items'.

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 through the phrase 'optionally filtered by faction,' suggesting when to use the optional parameter. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like 'get_fence' for single-fence retrieval or other list tools, and doesn't mention prerequisites or exclusions.

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