Display an ASCII overhead view of nearby terrain around the current position. Set a radius to inspect surroundings while playing The Mana World.
Show ASCII minimap around current position.
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": "map"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| radius | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output format (ASCII minimap) and the read-only nature implied by 'Show', but says nothing about cost, permissions, or whether the view reflects live state. Adequate for a trivial display tool, but thin.
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 with zero filler. Every word contributes to the meaning.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema this is minimally sufficient: the agent knows what it displays and where. The undocumented radius and the lack of any usage context keep it from being complete.
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 single 'radius' parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is never mentioned in the description. The description's phrase 'around current position' gestures at scope but does not explain that radius controls the extent of the map, leaving the parameter's meaning to inference.
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 (Show), resource (ASCII minimap), and scope (around current position). No sibling tool clearly overlaps, so differentiation is adequate by default, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from state-type tools that may also report location.
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 gives no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and names no alternatives. An agent must infer that this is a read-only orientation aid rather than something to call before walking or attacking.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.