checar_escopoEvaluates whether a game MVP fits your deadline and team, then flags common scope risks like multiplayer, open worlds, or 3D.
Avalia se o MVP cabe no prazo e na equipe e aponta riscos comuns (multiplayer, mundo aberto, 3D...).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| jogo | Yes | Nome ou identificador (slug) do jogo |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It hints at output content (common risks) but does not state whether the tool is read-only, what permissions are needed, or whether it modifies any state. This leaves important behavioral context unspecified.
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 sentence that is front-loaded with the main verb and contains no redundant information. It is efficient and well-structured.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description explains the purpose and some output content (risk areas), but it omits usage context, behavioral traits, and return format details. It is minimally adequate but not 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?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the single 'jogo' parameter is fully documented in the input schema. The description adds no further meaning about the parameter, making the baseline of 3 appropriate.
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 'Avalia' (evaluates) and the resource being evaluated: whether the MVP fits the deadline and team, plus common risks. This distinguishes it from siblings like gerar_gdd or criar_jogo, but it does not explicitly name an alternative.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling tools, nor does it mention prerequisites or the appropriate stage in the workflow. Usage is only implied by the name and function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.