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. It mentions the tool is for discovery but doesn't disclose behavioral traits such as whether it's read-only, if it has rate limits, what the output format is, or any authentication needs. For a search tool with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding how it behaves.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and followed by usage guidance. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse.

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 (a search tool with 5 parameters) and lack of annotations and output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what the search returns, how results are structured, or any behavioral constraints. For a tool meant to discover other tools, more context on output and usage limits is needed to be fully helpful.

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 minimal parameter semantics beyond the input schema, mentioning search by 'category, capability, or keyword,' which loosely maps to the 'query' and 'category' parameters. With 80% schema description coverage, the schema already documents most parameters well, so the description doesn't need to add much. It doesn't fully compensate for the 20% gap (e.g., 'sessionId' is undocumented in both), but meets the baseline.

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 available RPG tools by category, capability, or keyword.' It specifies the verb ('search'), resource ('RPG tools'), and search dimensions. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'search_items' or 'search_narrative_notes,' which are more specific searches.

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 clear context for usage: 'Use this to discover tools before using them.' This indicates it's for exploration and discovery rather than direct action. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use it or name alternatives, but the context is sufficient for basic guidance.

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