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 tool as a creation operation ('Create a complete location'), implying it's a write/mutation tool, which is useful context. However, it lacks details on permissions, error handling, or response format. The examples provide some behavioral insight (e.g., structure of input), but key operational traits like idempotency or side effects are not addressed.

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 well-structured and front-loaded: the first sentence states the purpose clearly, followed by replacement context, token savings, and examples. The examples are detailed but necessary for illustrating complex usage. The lists of categories, icons, and biomes are concise references. While lengthy due to examples, every section adds value, and there is no redundant or verbose text.

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 (15 parameters, no output schema, no annotations), the description does a strong job. It explains the tool's purpose, usage context, and provides rich examples that clarify parameter semantics. However, it lacks details on behavioral aspects like error conditions or return values, and some parameters (e.g., 'sessionId') are not mentioned in the description, leaving minor gaps in completeness.

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 high (87%), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing two detailed examples (Goblin Cave and Village Inn) that illustrate practical usage of parameters like 'rooms', 'inhabitants', and 'loot', including nested structures. It also lists allowed values for 'categories', 'icons', and 'biomes' beyond the schema enums, enhancing understanding. However, it doesn't fully explain all 15 parameters, keeping it from a perfect score.

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: 'Create a complete location with POI, optional room network, and inhabitants in one call.' It specifies the verb ('create'), resource ('complete location'), and components (POI, room network, inhabitants), distinguishing it from simpler creation tools. The explicit mention of replacing multiple sibling tools (e.g., create_poi, create_network) further clarifies its unique, comprehensive function.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives: it states it 'REPLACES: create_poi + create_network + N×create_room + N×spawn_character + N×(create_item + place_item)' and highlights 'TOKEN SAVINGS: ~90%'. This directly informs the agent to use this tool for batch creation of populated locations instead of individual component tools, with clear efficiency benefits.

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