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. It only states the action ('get shop items') without details on permissions, rate limits, response format, or whether it's read-only or has side effects. For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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 ('获取商店物品'), which is extremely concise and front-loaded with the core action. There is no wasted verbiage or unnecessary elaboration, making it efficient for quick understanding.

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 tool's simplicity (1 parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description is incomplete. It lacks context on what 'shop items' includes (e.g., prices, availability), how results are returned, or any behavioral traits. Without annotations or output schema, the description should provide more detail to be fully helpful.

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 100% description coverage, with the single parameter 'shopType' documented as '商店类型' (shop type) and an enum list. The description adds no additional meaning beyond this, such as explaining what each shop type entails or how it affects results. With high schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is 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 '获取商店物品' translates to 'get shop items', which states the verb ('get') and resource ('shop items'), providing a basic purpose. However, it's vague about scope (e.g., all items or filtered) and doesn't distinguish from siblings like 'get_inventory' or 'buy_item', which involve similar resources. It avoids tautology by not merely restating the name 'get_shop'.

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 offers no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention context like retrieving items for purchase vs. viewing inventory, nor does it reference siblings such as 'get_inventory' or 'buy_item' for comparison. This leaves the agent without explicit or implied usage rules.

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