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 states the tool sets the active character, implying a mutation, but fails to describe key behavioral traits such as permissions required, whether the change is reversible, effects on gameplay or other tools, or error handling. The prerequisite about membership is helpful but insufficient for a mutation tool with no annotation coverage.

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 a key constraint. Every word earns its place with no redundancy or fluff, making it highly efficient and easy to parse quickly.

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 mutation tool with 3 parameters, 0% schema coverage, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It lacks details on parameters, behavioral outcomes, error cases, and return values, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to understand how to invoke and interpret results effectively.

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 schema provides no parameter details. The description does not explain any of the three parameters (partyId, characterId, sessionId), their meanings, or how they relate to the tool's purpose. It mentions 'character' and implies 'party' context but adds no specific semantics beyond what the parameter names suggest, failing to compensate for the low 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 action ('Set the active character') and specifies the resource ('player's POV'), which is a character. It distinguishes the purpose from siblings like 'set_party_leader' or 'update_character' by focusing on viewpoint selection rather than leadership or character modification. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from all siblings, such as those managing character states, so it's not a perfect 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 provides a prerequisite ('The character must already be a member'), which gives some context for when to use it. However, it lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives (e.g., vs. 'set_party_leader' or 'update_character'), does not mention when not to use it, and offers no comparison to sibling tools. This results in minimal usage guidance.

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