Habitica MCP Server

Does 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. 'Get inventory' implies a read operation but reveals nothing about permissions, rate limits, data format, pagination, or error conditions. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this description is completely inadequate in describing behavioral traits.

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?

While 'Get inventory' is technically concise, it's under-specified rather than appropriately concise. The two words fail to provide essential context about what inventory means in this system. Conciseness should not come at the expense of clarity—this description is too brief to be helpful.

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 lack of annotations, no output schema, and the description's extreme brevity, this is completely inadequate. The description doesn't explain what 'inventory' encompasses in this context (items, pets, mounts, etc.), what format the data returns, or any behavioral aspects. For a tool in a system with many similar retrieval tools, this description provides insufficient 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 input schema has 0 parameters with 100% description coverage, meaning the schema fully documents that no parameters are required. The description doesn't need to add parameter semantics since there are none to explain. A baseline score of 4 is appropriate as the description doesn't contradict the schema (which shows no parameters).

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 'Get inventory' is a tautology that merely restates the tool name without adding any meaningful context. It doesn't specify what inventory is being retrieved (e.g., user inventory, shop inventory, game inventory) or what resources are included. While it uses a clear verb ('Get'), it lacks the specificity needed to distinguish this tool from potential alternatives.

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 provides absolutely no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Given the numerous sibling tools (e.g., get_shop, get_pets, get_stats, get_tasks), there's no indication whether this tool retrieves a comprehensive inventory or a specific subset. No prerequisites, exclusions, or comparative context are mentioned.

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