Habitica MCP Server

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. '喂养宠物' implies a mutation (feeding likely consumes food or changes pet state), but it doesn't specify effects (e.g., does it reduce inventory, affect pet stats, have cooldowns, or require permissions). This is inadequate for a tool with potential side effects.

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 phrase ('喂养宠物'), which is maximally concise and front-loaded. There's no wasted verbiage, making it efficient for quick understanding, though it lacks depth.

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?

Given the complexity (a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema), the description is incomplete. It doesn't cover behavioral traits, usage context, or output expectations, leaving significant gaps for an AI agent to infer how and when to invoke it correctly.

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 100%, with both parameters ('pet' and 'food') documented as keys. The description adds no meaning beyond the schema, not explaining what valid keys are or how they relate (e.g., if 'food' must be compatible with 'pet'). Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 '喂养宠物' (feed pet) states a clear verb and resource, but it's vague about what feeding entails in this system. It doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'hatch_pet' or 'buy_item' (which might involve food purchases), leaving ambiguity about whether this is a consumption action, a status update, or something else.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With siblings like 'hatch_pet', 'get_pets', and 'buy_item', it's unclear if feeding requires prior steps (e.g., owning a pet, having food in inventory) or if it's a standalone action. The description offers no context for usage.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.