Get cited explanations of Udon/VRChat topics with exact file paths and line numbers. Submit a topic to receive accurate, source-backed guidance in your chosen depth.
WHEN: user needs a cited explanation of a Udon/VRChat topic. HOW: returns sections with path and line numbers — use citations, do not paraphrase away constraints.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | detailed | |
| topic | Yes | Topic to explain | |
| sdkVersion | No | Target SDK version |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that results are sections with path and line numbers and instructs the agent to use citations and not paraphrase away constraints. However, it does not address read-only behavior, failure cases, or limitations such as missing documentation.
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 WHEN/HOW structure is compact and front-loaded, with the use condition appearing first. The single sentence is information-dense and every clause carries meaning, though a bit more structure around depth and sdkVersion would improve it.
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?
There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must cover both behavior and return shape. It partially does this by mentioning sections with path and line numbers, but it omits depth semantics, sdkVersion impact, and any caveats about citation availability.
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 coverage is only 67%, and the description adds no parameter-specific meaning. It does not explain how depth changes the response or how sdkVersion affects the explanation, leaving the agent to infer from enum values and a minimal schema description.
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?
States a specific verb ('explain') and resource ('Udon/VRChat topic') and distinguishes itself by promising a 'cited explanation'. This makes it easy to separate from sibling tools like search_documentation or search_reference.
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 'WHEN:' clause gives a clear condition for use: the user needs a cited explanation of a Udon/VRChat topic. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion cases, so it stops short of a 5, but the intended usage is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.