MapleStory 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. While it mentions retrieving comprehensive information, it lacks details on permissions needed, rate limits, error handling, or what 'comprehensive' entails beyond listed components. For a read operation with no annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding tool behavior.

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, efficient sentence that front-loads the core purpose. Every word contributes to understanding the tool's scope, with no redundant or vague phrasing. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly listing what 'comprehensive' includes upfront.

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?

For a read tool with 3 parameters, 100% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is minimally adequate. It covers the 'what' but lacks context on 'how' (e.g., response format, pagination) and 'why' (use cases vs. siblings). Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral and comparative context would improve completeness.

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%, providing clear documentation for all parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, only implying that parameters control retrieval scope (e.g., includeEquipment affects equipment inclusion). No additional syntax, format, or semantic details are provided, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 clearly states the verb 'retrieve' and resource 'comprehensive character information', specifying it includes 'basic info, stats, and equipment in a single request'. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_character_basic_info or get_character_stats, which suggests overlapping functionality without clear boundaries.

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 like get_character_basic_info or get_character_equipment. It mentions retrieving comprehensive information in one request, but doesn't clarify trade-offs (e.g., performance, data freshness) or prerequisites, leaving the agent to guess based on tool names alone.

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