MapleStory MCP Server

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states 'retrieve,' implying a read-only operation, but lacks details on permissions, rate limits, data freshness, or response format. This is insufficient for a tool with multiple parameters and no output schema, leaving key behavioral traits unspecified.

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 without unnecessary words. However, it could be more structured by explicitly addressing key aspects like usage context or output, but it avoids redundancy and stays focused.

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 complexity of 4 optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It doesn't explain what 'enhancement statistics' entail, how parameters interact, or what the return values look like, leaving significant gaps for the agent to navigate without sufficient 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 description adds minimal meaning beyond the input schema, which has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all parameters. It mentions 'cube usage probability' and 'enhancement statistics,' hinting at the purpose of parameters like 'cubeType' and 'potentialGrade,' but doesn't elaborate on their interactions or provide additional context. This meets 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 tool's purpose: 'Retrieve cube usage probability information and enhancement statistics.' It specifies the action (retrieve) and the resource (cube usage probability and enhancement statistics), making it understandable. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from siblings like 'get_starforce_probability,' which might handle similar enhancement data, leaving room for ambiguity.

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. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, exclusions, or comparisons to sibling tools (e.g., 'get_starforce_probability'), leaving the agent to infer usage based on context alone.

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