See your character's current inventory and equipped items to know available resources and gear, enabling informed decisions for crafting, building, or combat.
Your character's inventory and equipment.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| 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 burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, what data it returns, or any side effects. The agent is left to infer that 'check' means viewing, which is not explicitly disclosed.
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 short, this is under-specification rather than concise efficiency. The single sentence does not earn its place because it merely identifies the resource without providing actionable information. It could have been replaced with a description that states the action.
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?
Even though an output schema exists, the description should still clarify what the tool does. With no annotations and a vague description, the agent lacks critical context about the tool's behavior. For a simple no-parameter tool, this is incomplete.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is 100% covered (an empty object). According to the calibration, a baseline of 4 is appropriate for tools with no parameters, and the description does not need to add parameter detail.
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 'Your character's inventory and equipment.' is a noun phrase that restates the resource named by the tool. It does not state an action like 'retrieve' or 'list', so it is closer to a tautology than a clear purpose statement. It also fails to distinguish from sibling tools like 'equip' or 'extract_items' that interact with the same inventory.
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 given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. An agent cannot tell whether to call check_inventory or equip/look_around based on the description. There are no exclusions or context offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.