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 describes the search functionality but does not cover important traits such as whether the search is paginated, what the output format looks like (no output schema), if there are rate limits, or authentication requirements. The description is minimal and misses key operational details.

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—a single sentence that directly states the tool's function without unnecessary words. It is front-loaded and efficient, making it easy to parse quickly. Every part of the sentence contributes to understanding the tool's purpose.

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 a search tool with 5 parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on behavior, output format, and usage context. While concise, it does not provide enough information for an agent to fully understand how to invoke the tool effectively or interpret results.

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?

The description adds some semantic context by mentioning searchable attributes ('name, type, or value range'), which aligns with the input schema parameters. However, with 80% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters well. The description does not explain the 'sessionId' parameter or provide additional details beyond what the schema offers, meeting the baseline for high coverage.

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: 'Search for items by name, type, or value range.' It specifies the verb ('search') and resource ('items'), and mentions the searchable attributes. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'list_items' or 'get_item', which might offer alternative ways to retrieve items.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention sibling tools like 'list_items' (which might list all items without filtering) or 'get_item' (which might retrieve a specific item by ID), nor does it specify prerequisites such as requiring a sessionId or other context. Usage is implied by the search functionality but lacks explicit direction.

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