Installs or updates the REFramework autorun eval bridge script and optionally reloads it in a running Dragon's Dogma 2 game, applying bridge changes without a restart.
Install or update the dd2mcp eval bridge script in reframework/autorun; reload=True also re-runs it in the running game (bridge 0.5.0+ in memory), so bridge changes need no restart.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| reload | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses that this writes/updates a script and that reload=True re-runs it in the running game, including the bridge 0.5.0+ in-memory requirement. However, it does not state overwrite behavior, whether the game must already be running for reload, or what happens on failure.
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 efficient sentence with the core action front-loaded and the reload behavior appended as useful qualification. There is 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 one-parameter install/update tool with an output schema and no annotations, the description covers the essential behavior and version constraint. Minor gaps remain around reload prerequisites and failure/overwrite semantics, but nothing critical for calling the tool is missing.
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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain the single reload parameter, and it does: reload=True re-runs the bridge in the running game so changes need no restart. It does not explicitly explain reload=False, but the contrast is strongly implied by the install/update-only baseline.
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 names a specific verb pair (install/update), the exact resource (dd2mcp eval bridge script), and its target location (reframework/autorun). This clearly distinguishes it from the many dd2_* query/eval tools, none of which concern bridge installation.
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?
It gives clear usage context: install or update the bridge, and use reload=True to re-run it in the running game so bridge changes need no restart. It does not explicitly name when-not-to-use cases or alternatives, but the unique bridge-management purpose makes the intended context clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.