Verifies connectivity to a Factorio world via RCON and reports the game version plus available operations before an LLM assistant inspects or controls it.
Check the connection, game version and supported operations.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden, and it does disclose the meaningful behavioral traits: this is a non-mutating probe that also reports version and supported operations (capability discovery). It does not state whether the call has side effects or what happens on failure, but for a zero-argument probe this is solid coverage; return details are covered by the output schema.
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?
A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb and the three checked items. No filler, redundancy, or trailing caveats.
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 zero parameters and an existing output schema, the description covers what the tool inspects and hints at capability discovery via 'supported operations'. The only gap is that it doesn't frame the call as a prerequisite/health check relative to the many sibling tools, which would help an agent sequence it correctly.
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 takes no parameters, so there is no per-parameter semantics to explain; baseline 4 applies. The description adds no parameter information and needs none.
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 ('Check') and enumerates the three things verified: connection, game version, and supported operations. This clearly identifies it as a diagnostic/handshake tool, distinguishable in character from the action-oriented siblings, though it never explicitly names itself as the connectivity probe an agent should call first.
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?
Usage is only implied: the listed checks suggest calling it to verify a live connection or discover capabilities before invoking gameplay tools, but the description never states that condition. With zero parameters there is no risk guidance needed, so the omission is minor rather than harmful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.