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 what the tool does but doesn't describe what 'health status' entails (e.g., response format, success/failure indicators, timeout behavior, or what happens if connections fail). For a diagnostic tool with zero annotation coverage, this leaves significant gaps in understanding its operational 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 directly states the tool's purpose without any redundant or unnecessary information. It is appropriately sized and front-loaded, making it easy to parse while conveying the essential function.

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 lack of annotations and output schema, the description is insufficient for a diagnostic tool. It doesn't explain what the health check returns (e.g., status codes, metrics, error details) or how to interpret results, leaving the agent without necessary context to use the tool effectively beyond knowing its broad purpose.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, with the single parameter 'includeDetails' fully documented in the schema. The description doesn't add any parameter-specific information beyond what the schema provides, so it meets the baseline of 3 where the schema handles the parameter documentation adequately.

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 specific action ('Check') and the target resources ('health status of the MCP server and NEXON API connection'), distinguishing it from all sibling tools which focus on game data retrieval rather than system monitoring. It provides a precise verb+resource combination that leaves no ambiguity about its function.

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, prerequisites, or context for invocation. While the purpose is clear, there is no mention of when it should be triggered (e.g., during initialization, after errors, periodically) or how it differs from other diagnostic tools that might exist.

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