Get combat state: combatants, round, turn, whose turn it is. Call FIRST to check if combat exists before other combat operations. Returns combatant IDs needed for combat-roll-initiative, combat-set-combatant-defeated, etc. combatId selects a specific encounter; omit it for the active combat.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| combatId | No | Combat ID (uses active combat if omitted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description doesn't need to repeat those. It adds behavioral context about the return value (combatant IDs needed for other operations) and the sequencing instruction. It doesn't specify behavior when no combat exists, but the 'check if combat exists' phrasing adequately implies that case.
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?
Three sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage guidance and parameter clarification. No wasted words; each sentence earns its place.
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 getter with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers the return contents and how to use it in a workflow. It's sufficient for an agent to call correctly, especially given the strong annotation coverage.
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 schema already documents combatId with a description 'Combat ID (uses active combat if omitted)'. The tool description adds a slightly richer phrasing 'selects a specific encounter; omit it for the active combat' but essentially repeats the schema. Since schema coverage is 100%, baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 the tool retrieves combat state including combatants, round, turn, and whose turn it is. It distinguishes itself from sibling combat tools by being the getter and explicitly positions it as the first call before other combat operations.
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 explicitly instructs to call first to check if combat exists before other operations, and explains how to select a specific encounter via combatId or use active combat by omitting it. This is clear when-to-use guidance that differentiates from alternatives.
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.