rpg-mcp

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions the basic action but doesn't disclose important behavioral traits like whether this requires specific permissions, what happens to the corpse after looting, whether items are transferred immediately, or what the response format is. This is inadequate for a mutation tool with zero 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 extremely concise (two short sentences) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every word earns its place with no wasted text, making it 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?

For a mutation tool with 6 parameters, 50% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It should explain more about the operation's behavior, return values, error conditions, and relationship to similar tools to be complete enough for an AI agent.

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% (3 of 6 parameters have descriptions). The description adds value by explaining the relationship between 'itemId' and 'lootAll' parameters, but doesn't provide context for other parameters like 'characterId', 'corpseId', 'quantity', or 'sessionId'. This partially compensates but doesn't fully address 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 action ('loot items') and target ('from a corpse'), providing a specific verb+resource combination. However, it doesn't explicitly distinguish this tool from similar tools like 'loot_encounter' or 'harvest_corpse' in the sibling list, which would be needed for a perfect score.

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 implied usage guidance by mentioning two modes (specific item vs. everything), but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'loot_encounter' or 'harvest_corpse', nor does it 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.