Look up Game Boy cartridge header fields and layout documentation. Specify an offset like $0147 to get detailed documentation for a single field, or omit it to view the full header layout.
Show the cartridge header layout, or one field's full documentation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| offset | No | An offset like '$0147'. Omit for the whole layout. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full burden of disclosing behavior. The verb 'show' suggests a read-only operation, but there is no explicit statement about side effects, return format, or error conditions. The description does not clarify whether it fetches documentation, parses a header, or returns a static layout.
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, concise sentence that front-loads the primary purpose. It avoids unnecessary words and clearly communicates the two modes of operation (layout vs. single field). Excellent structure for quick comprehension.
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?
For a simple documentation tool, the description is largely complete: it states what it does and how the parameter affects the result. It does not specify the output format or provide examples, but given the tool's straightforward nature and the parameter description already included, the missing details are minor and unlikely to impede correct usage.
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 tool description adds meaning to the 'offset' parameter by explaining that specifying a field yields its full documentation, while omitting it returns the whole layout. This pairs well with the parameter description ('An offset like '$0147'. Omit for the whole layout.') to give a clear understanding of the parameter's role. Since the schema already covers the parameter, the description adds extra context, elevating it above 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 function: to show the cartridge header layout or detailed documentation for a specific field. This is a specific verb ('show') and resource ('cartridge header'), and it distinguishes itself from related tools like gb_memory_map or gb_decode_cart_header by focusing on the header layout and field-level documentation.
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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives. It implies usage for understanding the cartridge header layout or a single field, but there is no contrast with sibling tools such as gb_decode_cart_header or gb_lookup_cart_code. No guidance on selection criteria is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.