wormhole_typeLook up EVE Online wormhole type data by signature code to get destination class, mass limits, lifetime, and static system classes.
Looks up wormhole types by their signature code (e.g. K162, H296, D845): destination class, max mass per jump, total mass, mass regeneration, lifetime, and the classes of systems that have it as a static.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| codes | Yes | Wormhole codes, e.g. ['H296', 'K162']. |
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 and openWorldHint, so safety is covered. The description goes further by disclosing the return payload (destination class, max/total mass, regeneration, lifetime, static classes), which matters because there is no 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 front-loaded sentence: verb and input first, then the returned field list. Every clause carries information and nothing is repeated from structured fields verbatim.
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?
With one simple read-only parameter and no output schema, the description supplies the missing return-value detail, which is the main completeness risk here. It stops short of noting behavior for unknown codes or the 20-item cap, but the schema handles the cap.
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 100% and the sole parameter's schema entry already includes an example array. The description restates example codes but adds no format rules, case sensitivity, or batch behavior beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.
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?
Specific verb (looks up) plus resource (wormhole types) and the exact key (signature code) with concrete examples K162, H296, D845. It also enumerates the payload, so an agent knows precisely what comes back and that no sibling tool offers this data.
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 implied by the description — call it when you have a wormhole signature code — but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not statement or named alternative. In this toolset there is no direct competitor, so the gap is minor but real.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.