Execute a prepared MGSV converter job once and return its exit status, logs, and changed-file hashes; staged files may be rewritten, so validate outputs in-game.
Run a prepared converter once; return exit status, logs and changed-file hashes. May rewrite staged files. Outputs need round-trip/in-game validation.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| timeout_seconds | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds real substance: 'May rewrite staged files' discloses the side-effect target, and 'Outputs need round-trip/in-game validation' flags that results are not self-verifying. It also lists the return payload (exit status, logs, changed-file hashes) despite no output schema. Only missing piece is timeout/abort behavior.
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?
Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and its side effect, then the return payload, then the validation caveat. Every sentence carries distinct information with no filler.
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 no output schema, the description usefully enumerates the return values, the mutation scope, and the verification caveat, which is what an agent needs to decide to call and how to treat results. The gap is parameter documentation, which the 0% schema coverage leaves entirely on the description.
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 0% and neither parameter is explained in the description. 'job_id' is loosely implied by 'prepared converter', but the agent gets no guidance on valid ids nor on what timeout_seconds controls (per-run limit? kill behavior?), which matters for a destructive tool with a 120s default.
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?
Names a specific verb+resource ('Run a prepared converter once') and implicitly distinguishes itself from the prepare/status siblings via the words 'prepared' and 'once'. It stops short of explicitly naming prepare_tool_job or tool_job_status, which would have made it a clean 5.
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?
'Run a prepared converter' implies the prerequisite that prepare_tool_job must have run first, and 'once' plus the non-idempotent annotation warns against re-running. However, no alternatives are named and there is no explicit when-not guidance, leaving the agent to infer the pipeline position.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.