Retrieve your on-foot Elite Dangerous state, including backpack contents, ship locker inventory, and latest suit loadout events from local journal files.
On-foot state: Backpack + ShipLocker + latest suit loadout events.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| journal_dir | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, and it discloses almost nothing. It does not state that this is a read-only journal read, how far back 'latest' reaches, what happens when no on-foot events exist, or whether journal_dir is required for meaningful results.
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?
A single front-loaded line with a colon-delimited enumeration — efficient and scannable. It is arguably too terse rather than padded, so the brevity is a clarity problem, not a verbosity one.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but the description still leaves the core semantics ('events'), the journal_dir parameter, and the no-data behavior undocumented. For a state-retrieval tool with an optional path parameter and zero schema coverage, this is under-specified.
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 0% for the single parameter journal_dir, and the description never mentions it. The agent gets no indication of what directory is expected, what the default (null) resolves to, or whether omitting it is safe — a real gap given the parameter is optional with a null default.
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 names the domain ('On-foot state') and three data components (Backpack, ShipLocker, latest suit loadout events), which does distinguish it from siblings like get_ship_loadout and get_cargo_hold. However, there is no verb, and 'events' is vague — it is unclear whether this returns current inventory, a historical event log, or a derived snapshot.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternative despite many adjacent siblings (get_ship_loadout, get_cargo_hold, get_commander_status, get_journal_history). The agent must infer that this is the on-foot counterpart to the ship-side tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.