MapleStory MCP Server

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions retrieval but doesn't disclose behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, data freshness (e.g., rankings might be delayed), or pagination behavior beyond what's in the schema. The description is minimal and adds little 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 a single, efficient sentence with zero waste—it directly states the tool's purpose without redundancy. It's appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse quickly.

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 no annotations and no output schema, the description is minimal but covers the basic purpose. For a read-only tool with full schema coverage, it's adequate but lacks context about return values, error handling, or usage nuances. It meets minimum viability but has clear gaps in behavioral transparency.

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%, so the schema fully documents all parameters. The description adds no additional meaning beyond implying optional world filtering and overall rankings, which are already covered in the schema (worldName optional, gets all worlds if not specified). Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 action ('Retrieve guild rankings') and resource ('guild rankings'), specifying it can be for 'a specific world or overall rankings'. It distinguishes from siblings like get_guild_info (which likely provides detailed guild data rather than rankings) and get_overall_ranking (which might be for characters rather than guilds), though the distinction isn't explicitly stated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like get_guild_info or get_overall_ranking. The description implies usage for ranking retrieval but lacks context about prerequisites, typical scenarios, or exclusions (e.g., when not to use it due to data freshness).

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