Create new combat encounter. First step in combat workflow. After creating: use combat-add-combatant to add actors, then combat-roll-all-initiative, then combat-start.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sceneId | No | Scene ID (uses active scene if omitted) | |
| activate | No | Activate combat immediately (default: true) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=false, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds the workflow context but does not disclose any additional behavioral traits, such as what happens if a combat already exists or how the 'activate' parameter affects the result. The description is consistent with annotations but adds minimal behavioral detail beyond creation.
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 two sentences: the first states the core action, the second provides the workflow context. It is front-loaded with the purpose and wastes no words. Every sentence earns its place, making it efficient and easy to scan.
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 create tool with two optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the essential usage context through the workflow sequence. It doesn't explain edge cases like what happens if a combat already exists, but that is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity and the schema's parameter documentation. Overall, the agent has enough to call it correctly.
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 input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters (sceneId and activate) with clear descriptions. The description does not add any extra meaning to the parameters, nor does it need to given the schema's thoroughness. Baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the semantic load.
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 clearly states 'Create new combat encounter' – a specific verb and resource. It also positions itself as the 'First step in combat workflow', which distinguishes it from sibling tools like combat-add-combatant or combat-start. The purpose is unambiguous and well-scoped.
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 explicitly provides the workflow sequence: 'After creating: use combat-add-combatant to add actors, then combat-roll-all-initiative, then combat-start.' This tells the agent exactly when to use this tool and what to do next, leaving no ambiguity about its role in the combat lifecycle.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.