Make your character rise upright from a seated or prone position so you can resume moving and acting in The Mana World.
Stand up.
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": "stand"
}
}| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure, and it says nothing beyond the verb. It does not state what state is required (must be sitting?), whether it affects combat or movement eligibility, or what happens if already standing.
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 words, front-loaded and free of filler, but the brevity reflects under-specification rather than tight structure. There is no sentence earning its place because there is only one fragment.
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 zero-parameter posture action, the description is incomplete: it omits state preconditions, side effects on movement/combat, and any output expectation. With no annotations and no output schema, the description should have done more of this work.
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 for the description to explain; the baseline of 4 applies. Nothing is missing or contradictory in the empty schema.
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?
"Stand up." essentially restates the tool name (stand) with no additional specificity. It does imply a change of posture in a game context, which loosely distinguishes it from siblings like sit, but an agent gets no more information than the name already conveys.
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 when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative routing is provided. The description gives no hint that this is the inverse of sit or that it interacts with movement actions like walk.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.