rpg-mcp

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions that the tool registers an NPC 'as a fence (buys stolen goods)', implying a write operation that modifies game state, but lacks details on permissions, side effects (e.g., NPC behavior changes), error conditions, or response format. This is insufficient for a mutation tool with 8 parameters.

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, efficient sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, directly stating the tool's purpose without unnecessary elaboration.

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 (8 parameters, mutation operation, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It lacks essential context such as parameter meanings, behavioral traits, usage scenarios, and expected outcomes, making it inadequate for effective tool invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate by explaining parameters. It adds no semantic context for any of the 8 parameters (e.g., what 'buyRate' means, how 'maxHeatLevel' affects gameplay). The baseline for high schema coverage would be 3, but here the description fails to provide any parameter insights.

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 ('register') and target resource ('an NPC as a fence'), providing a specific purpose. However, it doesn't differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_fences' or 'sell_to_fence', which would require explicit comparison to achieve 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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'list_fences' or 'sell_to_fence', nor does it mention prerequisites (e.g., NPC must exist, session must be active). It only states what the tool does, not when or why to invoke it.

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