Close NPC dialog windows in The Mana World. Use the default tracked NPC, or pass an explicit npc_id to clear a stale dialog when the client state does not update.
Close NPC dialog. If npc_id is 0 (default), closes the NPC tracked by the client; pass an explicit id to close a specific NPC when the client state is stale (e.g., after clicking a storage NPC that never sent a dialog packet).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| npc_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the interesting behavior of the default sentinel and the stale-state use case, but says nothing about failure modes, what happens if the id is invalid, or any return/confirmation 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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, followed by the parameter rule and a single parenthetical example. No filler and every clause earns its place.
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 single-parameter, no-output-schema, no-annotation tool, the description covers the action and the only parameter's semantics well. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only error/edge-case behavior is left unstated.
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 coverage is 0% and the lone parameter has no description, so the description must compensate. It does so effectively, explaining that npc_id=0 is the default and means 'client-tracked NPC', while a nonzero id targets a specific NPC. This is exactly the semantic the schema is missing.
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 and resource ('Close NPC dialog'), clearly distinguishing it from open/next/choose dialog siblings. It does not explicitly distinguish from close_storage, which is a near-neighbor in the sibling list, but the core action is unambiguous.
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?
Gives explicit conditional guidance: use the default 0 for the client-tracked NPC, and pass an explicit id only when client state is stale. A concrete triggering scenario (storage NPC with no dialog packet) is provided. No explicit exclusions or named alternatives, so not a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.