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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions that events are queued and polled by the frontend, which adds some context about the tool's role in an event-driven system. However, it lacks critical details such as permissions required, rate limits, whether events are durable, error handling, or what happens on success/failure. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a significant gap.

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 well-structured in three sentences: it states the purpose, provides usage context, and explains the downstream effect (frontend polling). Each sentence adds value without redundancy. It could be slightly more front-loaded by emphasizing the core action first, but overall it's efficient.

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 complexity (7 parameters, mutation operation, no output schema, and no annotations), the description is incomplete. It covers the high-level purpose and usage but lacks details on behavioral traits, parameter meanings beyond the schema, and expected outcomes. For a tool that pushes events in a system with many siblings, more context is needed to guide 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 57% (4 out of 7 parameters have descriptions). The description doesn't add any parameter-specific semantics beyond what's in the schema—it doesn't explain the meaning of 'eventType' enums, 'payload' structure, or other parameters. With moderate schema coverage, the baseline is 3, as the description doesn't compensate for the coverage 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: 'Push an event to the inbox.' It specifies the verb ('push') and resource ('event to the inbox'), and provides concrete examples of event types (NPC actions, combat updates, world changes). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate this tool from sibling tools like 'poll_events' or 'get_event_history', which is why it doesn't reach a score of 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 implies usage guidelines by stating 'Used by DM or internal systems to queue events' and listing example event types (e.g., NPCs doing things, combat updates). This gives context about when to use it, but it doesn't provide explicit alternatives or exclusions (e.g., when not to use it vs. other event-related tools). The guidance is helpful but not comprehensive.

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