Arma Reforger MCP Status

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, indicating a safe read operation. The description adds that it shows capabilities, safety gates, and path availability, which is useful but does not disclose further behavioral traits such as caching, server requirements, or output format. With annotations covering the safety profile, the description provides moderate additional context.

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 extremely concise with two short sentences (EN and DE), front-loading the English version. Every word contributes to the purpose without redundancy or filler.

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?

While the description is sufficient for a zero-parameter status tool, it could be more complete by hinting at the output format or structure (e.g., JSON, list). The description covers what it shows but not how the data is presented, which might require the agent to infer.

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 tool has zero parameters, and the input schema has 100% coverage trivially. Per guidelines, a baseline score of 4 is appropriate since no parameter description is needed. The description does not repeat schema information.

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 explicitly states the tool shows 'configured capabilities, safety gates, and path availability.' The verb 'show' combined with specific resource types clearly defines the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'list_projects' or 'inspect_logs,' which address different concerns.

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 lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While it implies its use for checking server configuration before other operations, no when-not-to-use or alternative recommendations are provided. The context is implied but not elaborated.

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