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 'Returns matching notes for context building,' which hints at read-only behavior and output purpose, but lacks critical details: whether it's paginated (limit parameter exists but not explained), if it requires specific permissions, rate limits, or error conditions. For a search tool with 10 parameters, this is insufficient behavioral disclosure.

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 that front-loads the core functionality. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, though it could be slightly more structured (e.g., separating search from return purpose). Overall, it's appropriately concise for a search tool.

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 (10 parameters, no annotations, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't address behavioral aspects like pagination, permissions, or error handling, and while the schema covers parameters, the description lacks context on when and how to use the tool effectively. For a search operation in a narrative system, more guidance 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 80%, so the schema documents most parameters well. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema: it lists filtering criteria (type, status, tags, text content) that align with parameters, but doesn't explain semantics like AND logic for tags (covered in schema) or how query interacts with other filters. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does heavy lifting.

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 and filter narrative notes by type, status, tags, or text content.' It specifies the verb ('search and filter'), resource ('narrative notes'), and filtering criteria. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'get_narrative_note' or 'get_narrative_context_notes', which appear to be related read operations.

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 doesn't mention prerequisites (e.g., needing a worldId), exclusions, or comparisons to siblings like 'get_narrative_note' (single note retrieval) or 'get_narrative_context_notes' (context-specific notes). Usage is implied only by the description's focus on searching/filtering.

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