set_accountSave a player's OSRS name and account mode so future answers are checked against that account.
Use when the player tells you their OSRS name or account mode (main, ironman and so on). Saves it so later answers are checked against that account.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| mode | No | Account mode: main, ironman, hardcore_ironman, ultimate_ironman, deadman or seasonal | |
| name | Yes | OSRS player name (1-12 characters) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so safety and repeat-call behavior are covered. The description earns credit for adding the persistence side effect ('saves it so later answers are checked against that account'), which explains why the write matters beyond the annotation flags. It does not state overwrite/invalid-input 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?
Two tight sentences with the triggering condition front-loaded and the consequence summarized in a short clause. No filler or repetition.
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?
For a simple two-parameter setter with no output schema and full annotation coverage, the description supplies purpose, trigger, and effect. It leaves minor gaps around overwriting or invalid names, but nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.
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%: name is documented as 1-12 characters and mode enumerates all six values. The description adds the examples 'main, ironman and so on' for mode, but that duplicates the enum rather than extending it. Baseline 3 when 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 gives a specific verb and resource (saves the player's OSRS name/account mode) and explains the downstream effect on later answers. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from close siblings like get_account or lookup_player, so it falls just short of the top band.
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?
It gives a concrete trigger: 'Use when the player tells you their OSRS name or account mode'. This clearly implies the call is only needed at that moment. However, it names no alternatives or exclusions (e.g., vs. lookup_player), so it lacks the explicit when-not guidance of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.