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 discloses that the tool returns 'parameter definitions, types, and usage info,' which is useful behavioral context. However, it doesn't mention potential side effects (e.g., caching, performance impact), error conditions, or authentication needs (sessionId parameter hints at this). The description adds value but lacks depth for a tool with no annotation coverage.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by return details. Every word earns its place, with no redundancy or fluff. It's appropriately sized for a straightforward utility tool.

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 tool's low complexity (2 parameters, no nested objects) but lack of output schema and annotations, the description is minimally complete. It explains what the tool does and what it returns, but doesn't cover error handling, sessionId usage, or example outputs. It's adequate but leaves gaps an agent might need to infer.

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% (toolName is described, sessionId is not). The description adds no specific parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides—it doesn't explain the purpose of sessionId or clarify toolName usage. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate for the gap but doesn't detract either.

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 tool's purpose: 'Load the full input schema for a specific tool (required before first use).' It specifies the verb ('Load') and resource ('full input schema for a specific tool'), and distinguishes it from siblings by focusing on schema retrieval rather than game operations. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from potential schema-related siblings (none exist in the list), so it falls short of a perfect 5.

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 clear context for usage: 'required before first use' of a tool, implying this should be invoked to understand other tools' parameters. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for an agent to infer it's a preparatory step. No misleading guidance is present.

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