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 a read operation ('List'), implying non-destructive behavior, but doesn't disclose any behavioral traits like pagination, rate limits, permissions required, or what 'all' entails (e.g., if it returns everything at once). This leaves significant gaps for an agent to understand how the tool behaves beyond 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, direct sentence with no wasted words, making it highly concise and front-loaded. Every part of the sentence contributes to stating the tool's purpose efficiently.

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 a listing tool with 2 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior (e.g., return format, limitations), parameter usage, and differentiation from siblings, making it insufficient for an agent to fully understand the tool's context and operation.

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 one parameter ('type') well-described and another ('sessionId') undocumented. The description adds no parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides, such as explaining the filter's effect or the purpose of 'sessionId'. Since schema coverage is moderate, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.

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 item templates in the database'), making the purpose unambiguous. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_templates' or 'list_characters', which follow a similar pattern, 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, such as 'list_templates' or 'search_items', nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions. It lacks context for selection among similar listing tools in the server.

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