Query a local TibiaWiki SQLite index to resolve page names and filter creatures or items by stats, damage modifiers, drops, vendors, and quest rewards. Requires a built index before answering.
UNAVAILABLE: the local TibiaWiki index is missing or unusable, so tibia_get cannot answer anything until it is built.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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=true and openWorldHint=false, and the description adds a genuine operational fact beyond them: the backing TibiaWiki index is missing, so every call will fail. That is useful availability disclosure, though it says nothing about failure modes, cost, or what happens once the index exists.
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?
One front-loaded sentence with the critical status ('UNAVAILABLE') in the first word and no filler. It is appropriately sized for the message it carries, though the message itself is thin.
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 agent reading this knows not to call tibia_get, but is left without a next step: no sibling is suggested and no hint is given about how the index gets built. For a tool that is unusable, routing guidance is the one thing the description most needs to provide.
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 takes zero parameters and the schema is trivially complete, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies for a no-parameter tool.
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 never states what tibia_get actually retrieves (a page, entity, or record) — it only reports its own unavailability. It effectively restates the tool name and an error state rather than naming a verb+resource, so an agent cannot tell what the tool would do even once the index is built.
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 states a negative condition ('cannot answer anything until it is built'), which implies the tool should not be called now, but it names no alternative among the four siblings (tibia_search, tibia_find_creatures, tibia_find_items, tibia_how_to_obtain) and no positive when-to-use condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.