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 signaling completion but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like whether this is a read-only or mutative operation, what permissions are required, whether it triggers turn advancement automatically, or what the response looks like. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves critical behavioral aspects unspecified.

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, clear sentence that gets straight to the point with zero wasted words. It's appropriately sized for a simple signaling operation and front-loads the essential information effectively.

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 turn-based systems and the complete lack of annotations, schema descriptions, and output schema, the description is insufficient. It doesn't explain what 'signaling' entails operationally, what happens after signaling, or how this interacts with other turn-related tools. For a tool that likely affects game state, more contextual information is needed.

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%, meaning none of the three parameters (worldId, nationId, sessionId) are documented in the schema. The description provides no information about what these parameters mean, their expected formats, or why sessionId is optional. This fails to compensate for the complete lack of schema documentation.

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 ('Signal that your nation is done planning') and the resource ('for this turn'), making the purpose specific and understandable. However, it doesn't distinguish this tool from potential siblings like 'submit_turn_actions' or 'advance_turn' that might also relate to turn completion, which prevents 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 implies usage at the end of planning phases ('done planning for this turn'), but provides no explicit guidance on when to use this versus alternatives like 'submit_turn_actions' or what happens if used prematurely. No prerequisites or exclusions are mentioned, leaving significant gaps in usage context.

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