craft_rulesThe rules of the crafting system (characters, essences, extraction, brewing, gem cutting, socketing) as titled HTML sections.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | Language of the texts: en (default), fr, or all for both. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It does disclose that the output is HTML sections with titles, which is useful. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, mention the optional lang parameter behavior (e.g., default is 'en'), or describe any side effects. Given the lack of annotations, more transparency is expected.
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, compact sentence that front-loads the primary purpose and lists the content areas. It is efficient with no redundant words. However, it could be slightly more explicit about the action (e.g., 'returns' or 'retrieves'), which would strengthen clarity without adding bulk.
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 tool with one optional parameter, the description is reasonably complete: it states what is returned and the output format. It does not mention default language behavior or error cases, but these are not critical given the schema. The absence of an output schema is partially mitigated by describing the HTML sections. Still, it could benefit from stating that lang is optional and defaulting to 'en'.
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 already documents the lang parameter with a clear description and enum values, achieving 100% coverage. The description does not add any additional meaning about parameters. Since schema coverage is high, a baseline score of 3 is appropriate; the description neither enhances nor detracts from parameter understanding.
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's function: returning the crafting system rules (characters, essences, extraction, brewing, gem cutting, socketing) formatted as titled HTML sections. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which deal with entries, tracks, and audio taxonomy, by focusing on crafting rules.
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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. While sibling tools are clearly different in scope, the description does not mention any prerequisites, use cases, or exclusions. The agent must infer that this is the only tool for crafting rules, which is not stated.
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.
Each tool has a clear and distinct purpose: get_entry and get_track operate on different domains (encyclopedia vs. music), list_albums/list_composers/list_entries/list_facets are distinct list operations, and search_encyclopedia/search_tracks are separate search functions. No overlap or ambiguity.
The majority of tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_entry, list_albums, search_tracks, random_entry), but audio_taxonomy and craft_rules are exceptions, not following the verb_noun structure. This is a minor deviation.
With 12 tools, the server covers both a music database and an encyclopedia/crafting reference without being overwhelming. Each tool serves a clear function, and the count is well within the typical range for a specialized server.
The tool set covers all common read operations: listing, searching, retrieving by ID, random selection, and static reference (taxonomy, rules). For a read-only reference server, this is complete, with no obvious gaps for the described domain.