open77_fivem_equivalentResolve any FiveM native or Citizen call to its Open77 equivalent, or see what is deliberately absent. Falls back to search when no alias exists.
What an Open77 resource uses in place of a FiveM native or Citizen call, and what is deliberately absent. Falls back to a search when the name is not in the alias table.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds useful behavioral detail: it falls back to a search when the name is not in the alias table and explicitly surfaces deliberately absent mappings. This goes beyond the annotations without contradicting them.
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 with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the fallback behavior efficiently. Every word earns its place.
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 read-only lookup with one parameter, the description covers purpose and fallback behavior. But with no output schema, it does not explicitly describe the return shape (e.g., a string, an absence marker, or search results) and lacks formatting details for 'name'. These gaps mean an agent might not know exactly what to expect or how to format input.
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 schema has one required 'name' parameter with no description (0% coverage). The description compensates partially by identifying that 'name' refers to a FiveM native or Citizen call, giving the parameter meaning. However, it does not specify expected format, case sensitivity, or how the fallback search affects the input, so compensation is incomplete.
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 states that the tool reveals what Open77 uses in place of a FiveM native or Citizen call and what is deliberately absent. This communicates a clear mapping/lookup purpose and, combined with the title, distinguishes it from sibling tools. It lacks an explicit imperative verb like 'returns' or 'maps,' but the meaning is specific enough.
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 implies the tool should be used when you have a FiveM native or Citizen call name and need its Open77 equivalent. It also mentions fallback search behavior, but it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over alternatives like open77_search or open77_api, nor does it provide exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.