Calculate a navigation path between two points in a game world, with optional string-pulling optimization.
Query a navigation path between two points
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| end | Yes | End point {x,y} or {x,y,z} | |
| start | Yes | Start point {x,y} or {x,y,z} | |
| optimize | No | Use string-pulling optimization. Default: true |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It does indicate a read-only 'Query' action, but it does not state what the returned path looks like, whether a navigation mesh or map must already exist, or what happens when no path is found. This is minimal behavioral transparency.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes to stating the core action and scope, making it appropriately concise even if additional behavioral context would be beneficial.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description should provide some sense of the return value or behavior, but it only says 'Query a navigation path'. It also omits setup requirements or failure modes. The schema covers inputs well, but the overall tool context is incomplete for an agent.
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%, so the structured fields already document start, end, and optimize. The description adds no extra meaning about coordinate systems, units, or path-optimization behavior, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
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 uses a specific verb ('Query') and a clear resource ('a navigation path'), scoped to 'between two points'. It is not a tautology and it conveys the core operation, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling navigation-related tools such as game_navigation_3d or game_raycast.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, such as needing a navigation map, nor any when-not-to-use conditions. An agent must rely on the tool name alone to decide when this is the right choice among many game_* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.