Lists every item a The Mana World character carries, enabling MCP agents to review gear, supplies, and trade goods before acting.
List inventory items.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "inventory"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden and delivers almost none of it. It does not say whether the listing is paginated, whether it includes empty slots or slot indices needed by equip/drop, or whether it requires the player to be in a particular state. For a zero-param read tool the risk is low, but the disclosure is still minimal.
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, front-loaded sentence with zero padding. It is efficient, though the brevity shades into under-specification rather than deliberate conciseness.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description is the only place the return shape could be described, and it says nothing about what a listing contains (item names, slot indices, quantities). For a tool whose entire value is its output, this is a meaningful gap.
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 (0 params, empty schema), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. Schema coverage is 100% and the argument object is empty.
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 (List) and resource (inventory items), so the agent knows this is a read-only enumeration of the player's inventory. It does not, however, distinguish itself from inventory-adjacent siblings like equip, use, drop, or sell, which also operate on inventory contents.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus alternatives such as `stat` (status info) or the various item-manipulation tools. The agent must infer that this is the discovery step before equip/use/drop, but the description never says so.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.