Roll attack with a weapon/spell. Use actor-get FIRST to find itemId. For full attack sequence (roll + damage if hit), consider dnd5e-item-use instead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| itemId | Yes | Item ID of weapon/spell (from actor-get items list) | |
| actorId | Yes | Actor ID making the attack |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide no positive safety signals: readOnlyHint=false, no idempotency or destructivity hints, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It usefully scopes this tool to the attack roll only, but it does not say what the call returns, whether it posts to chat, or which game rules such as advantage and modifiers are applied.
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 carry purpose, prerequisite, and alternative routing with no filler. The most important information is front-loaded and every 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 two-parameter tool, the description plus schema is nearly sufficient: it explains the prerequisite and the boundary between attack and damage. It is slightly incomplete because there is no output schema and the description does not say what the agent should expect after the roll resolves.
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 both parameters already have clear descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that itemId comes from actor-get, but adds no genuinely new meaning beyond what the schema already states.
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 opens with a specific action and resource: 'Roll attack with a weapon/spell'. It also distinguishes this tool from dnd5e-item-use by noting that the full sequence (roll + damage if hit) belongs to that sibling, so an agent can tell them apart immediately.
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 gives an explicit prerequisite: 'Use actor-get FIRST to find itemId'. It also states the exact condition that should route an agent to dnd5e-item-use: 'For full attack sequence (roll + damage if hit)'. This is actionable and unambiguous about when this tool is the right choice.
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.