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. It mentions retrieving information, implying a read-only operation, but doesn't specify if it requires authentication, rate limits, error conditions, or what the output format looks like (e.g., JSON structure). For a tool with no annotation coverage, this is a significant gap in transparency.

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. It avoids redundancy and wastes no words, making it easy to parse. However, it could be slightly more structured by explicitly separating the tool's function from its output details.

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 incomplete for a tool that likely returns complex data (e.g., union raider board with blocks and stats). It doesn't hint at the response structure, error handling, or behavioral constraints, leaving significant gaps for the agent to infer usage in a broader 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with clear documentation for both parameters (characterName and date). The description adds minimal value beyond the schema, as it doesn't explain parameter interactions or provide additional context like what happens if the date is invalid or the character doesn't exist. Baseline 3 is appropriate since 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 verb 'retrieve' and the resource 'union raider board information', specifying it includes 'block placement and stats'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings like get_union_info or get_union_ranking by focusing on raider board details rather than general union data or rankings. However, it doesn't explicitly contrast with all siblings, keeping it at 4 instead of 5.

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_stats or get_union_info. It lacks context about prerequisites, such as whether the character must be in a union, or exclusions for when not to use it. This leaves the agent with minimal usage direction beyond the tool's name and parameters.

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