Revive your character after death so an AI agent can continue playing The Mana World.
Respawn after death.
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": "respawn"
}
}| 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, yet it only states the trigger condition. It says nothing about where the character reappears, whether items/XP are affected, or any cooldown or cost, which are the typical behavioral traits an agent would need for a respawn command.
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?
It is a single front-loaded sentence with zero filler, which is good, but it is so sparse that 'appropriately sized' is questionable for a command that has behavioral implications. It avoids the empty tautology of a bare name but does not build any structure beyond the trigger clause.
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 zero parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, low complexity means less is required, and the trigger condition is the key piece an agent needs. Still, the description omits outcome and restriction details (respawn location, penalties, cooldown) that would make invocation unambiguous in a game context.
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, which sets the baseline at 4 per the scoring rules. There is no parameter information the description could add, so no deduction is warranted.
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 ('Respawn') and the triggering context ('after death'), so an agent can tell what the tool does without opening anything. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling 'restart', which is the closest ambiguity, so it falls 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 'after death' gives an implied trigger condition, which is useful usage context. However, there is no explicit when-not guidance, no mention of prerequisites such as cooldowns or costs, and no routing to the sibling 'restart' if the character is not dead, leaving the agent to infer edge cases.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.