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 templates and returns specific data, but does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only (implied by 'List'), pagination, rate limits, authentication needs, or error handling. The description is minimal and lacks critical operational context.

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 concise and front-loaded, consisting of two clear sentences that state the purpose and return values without unnecessary details. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating purpose from output details.

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, no output schema, and incomplete parameter documentation (50% coverage), the description is insufficient. It lacks details on behavioral traits, error cases, and full parameter semantics, making it inadequate for a tool in a complex server with many siblings. More context 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 50% (one of two parameters has a description). The description does not add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides (e.g., it does not explain 'category' filtering or 'sessionId' usage). With moderate schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not compensate for gaps.

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 ('workflow templates'), specifying what information is returned ('template names, descriptions, and required parameters'). It distinguishes from many siblings that perform different actions (e.g., 'create_template', 'execute_workflow'), but does not explicitly differentiate from other list tools like 'list_characters' or 'list_worlds' in terms of scope or filtering.

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. It does not mention any prerequisites, context for filtering (e.g., when to use the 'category' parameter), or compare it to other list tools (e.g., 'list_characters' for characters). Usage is implied only by the tool name and description.

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