Get combat state: combatants, round, turn, whose turn it is. 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, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds that the result carries combatant IDs consumed by mutation tools, which is useful, but it says nothing about what happens when no active combat exists or whether the read reflects live state.
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 short sentences: purpose and returned fields first, then the interoperability hint, then the parameter rule. No filler, and the most decision-relevant information is front-loaded.
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?
With no output schema, the description responsibly lists the returned fields (combatants, round, turn, current turn, combatant IDs), which is what an agent needs to know. The one meaningful gap is the empty state — whether a missing active combat yields an error or an empty result.
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 coverage is 100% and the single parameter's own description already states "uses active combat if omitted," so the schema carries the semantics. The description only restates that default rule rather than adding format or validation detail; baseline 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?
States a specific verb and resource ("Get combat state") and immediately enumerates what is returned: combatants, round, turn, whose turn it is. It names the downstream sibling tools (combat-roll-initiative, combat-set-combatant-defeated) that depend on its output, so an agent can place it precisely among the combat-* tools.
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?
Explicitly says "combatId selects a specific encounter; omit it for the active combat," which gives an unambiguous selection rule, and it signals the tool is a prerequisite for initiative/defeat tools. It stops short of stating when-not to call it (e.g., when no combat is active), so it is clear but not fully exhaustive.
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.