Click Next to continue non-player character dialog, enabling MCP-capable AI agents to progress conversations in The Mana World.
Continue NPC dialog (click Next).
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": "npc_next"
}
}| 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. It states the action (advancing dialog) but does not disclose preconditions (e.g., must be in an active NPC dialog) or any side effects, leaving significant behavioral context unstated.
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?
The description is a single short sentence that front-loads the core action and includes a helpful parenthetical. Every word earns its place, with no redundant or filler text.
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 simple, parameterless dialog-advance tool with no output schema, the description is largely sufficient. It could mention the precondition of an open NPC dialog, but the name and description together convey the essential action, making it nearly 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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The baseline score for a 0-param tool is 4; the description correctly does not invent parameters or add unnecessary detail.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Continue') and resource ('NPC dialog') plus the UI equivalent ('click Next'), making the tool's action clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like npc_choose or npc_close, so it stops short of a 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?
The phrase '(click Next)' implies usage when a Next button is available in an NPC dialog, which is adequate context. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this over alternatives like npc_choose or npc_close, nor any exclusions, so it remains implied usage rather than clear routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.