Habitica MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure but offers none. It doesn't indicate whether this is a read or write operation (likely a mutation based on context), what permissions are required, whether it's destructive, what happens on success/failure, or any rate limits. The single phrase provides zero behavioral context beyond the basic action.

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 extremely concise at just two Chinese characters ('孵化宠物'), which directly conveys the core action. There's no wasted language or unnecessary elaboration. While it's arguably too brief for completeness, as a standalone phrase it's efficiently structured with zero redundancy.

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 this is a mutation tool (implied by 'hatching') with no annotations and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It doesn't explain what the tool returns, what happens to the egg and potion after hatching, error conditions, or relationship to other pet-related tools. The two-character phrase is inadequate for the complexity of a tool that transforms inventory items into pets.

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 ('egg' and 'hatchingPotion') documented in the schema as requiring string keys. The description adds no additional parameter information beyond what the schema provides. According to scoring rules, when schema coverage is high (>80%), the baseline is 3 even with no param info in the description.

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 '孵化宠物' (hatch pet) is a tautology that essentially restates the tool name 'hatch_pet' in Chinese. While it indicates the action (hatching) and target (pet), it doesn't specify what resources are involved or distinguish this from sibling tools like 'feed_pet' or 'get_pets'. The purpose is recognizable but lacks specificity and differentiation.

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 no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There are no indications of prerequisites (e.g., needing an egg or potion first), no mention of when-not-to-use scenarios, and no reference to related tools like 'get_inventory' or 'get_pets' that might be needed beforehand. Usage context is completely absent.

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