Elder Futhark rune meanings, scholarly articles & book reviews, plus the runescript builder.
Scored across 3 tools
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: about_builder for creating bind-runes, explain_rune for rune meanings, and search_content for knowledge base queries. No overlap.
Two tools follow a verb_noun pattern (explain_rune, search_content), but about_builder uses a preposition_verb pattern, breaking consistency.
Three tools are well-scoped for the server's domain: rune reference, bind-rune creation, and knowledge base search. Not too few or too many.
Covers core needs (meaning, creation, search) but lacks a tool to list all runes or get an overview, which is a minor gap.
Describe Runoscript's runescript builder and galdrastav (bind-rune) and link to them. Use when the user wants to create/build/generate a runescript, bind-rune or talisman. Generation runs on the website (free tier + paid), not in chat. lang: en|ru|de|es.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | en |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| note | No | |
| summary | No | |
| galdrastav | No | |
| runescript_builder | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided; description discloses that generation runs on the website (free tier + paid), which is a key behavioral constraint. No other behavioral traits are critical for a descriptive tool.
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?
Description is relatively concise with two main ideas: what it does and usage guidance. Could be tightened slightly but is not verbose.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (1 parameter with default, output schema exists), the description covers purpose, usage, and parameter meaning thoroughly. No gaps.
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 description coverage is 0%, but description adds allowed values for lang (en|ru|de|es) beyond the schema, which only has a default. This compensates fully.
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 it describes the runescript builder and galdrastav, and links to them. It distinguishes from siblings (explain_rune, search_content) by focusing on the builder tool.
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 instructs to use when the user wants to create/build/generate a runescript, bind-rune, or talisman. Also notes that generation occurs on the website, not in chat, providing clear context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Look up the meaning of an Elder Futhark rune.
Returns its name, historical and esoteric meaning, phoneme, divination reading and keywords. Accepts a rune name (Fehu / Феху), stem (01-fehu) or latin (*fehu). Set reversed=true for the inverted/shadow divination meaning. lang: en|ru|de|es.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | en | |
| rune | Yes | ||
| reversed | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| n | No | |
| hint | No | |
| name | No | |
| stem | No | |
| found | No | |
| latin | No | |
| query | No | |
| source | No | |
| phoneme | No | |
| keywords | No | |
| reversed | No | |
| divination | No | |
| learn_more | No | |
| esoteric_meaning | No | |
| historical_meaning | No |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It implies a read-only lookup and discloses that reversed=true provides inverted meaning. No rate limits or auth mentioned, but acceptable for a simple query tool.
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 concise and front-loaded with the main purpose. Every sentence adds value, though a slight restructuring into bullet points could improve readability.
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?
Given an output schema exists, the description doesn't need to detail return values, but it lists them. All three parameters are handled. The tool is fully explained for its purpose.
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 description coverage is 0%, but the description adds meaning to all parameters: rune formats, reversed for inverted meaning, and lang with language examples. This fully compensates for the schema gap.
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 looks up the meaning of an Elder Futhark rune, specifying the returned fields (name, meaning, phoneme, etc.). It is distinct from sibling tools like about_builder and search_content.
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 explains acceptable input formats for rune (name, stem, latin) and mentions optional parameters reversed and lang. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, but the tool's single purpose makes it clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Search Runoscript's knowledge base about runes.
Covers scholarly rune articles, honest book reviews (Thorsson, Paxson, Zeland…), rune magic, divination, history and practice. Returns the top matches with title, URL and a snippet. Use to ground answers about runes in cited Runoscript content. lang: en|ru|de|es.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lang | No | en | |
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it returns top matches with title, URL, and snippet, but does not mention authentication, rate limits, or behavior on empty results. This is adequate but not thorough.
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 four sentences, front-loaded with the main action, followed by scope, return format, usage guidance, and a param note. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.
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?
Given the output schema exists, the description appropriately covers return fields. It addresses the tool's purpose, usage, and param 'lang', but omits 'limit' behavior. Sibling differentiation is implicit but sufficient.
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 0%, so the description should compensate. It partially does by explaining that 'lang' accepts en|ru|de|es, and indirectly describes 'query' as the search term. However, it does not explain the 'limit' parameter, leaving a gap.
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 'Search Runoscript's knowledge base about runes' and lists covered topics, distinguishing it from siblings 'about_builder' and 'explain_rune'. It specifies the verb, resource, and scope.
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 provides a clear use case: 'Use to ground answers about runes in cited Runoscript content.' It implies when to use versus siblings, but does not explicitly state when not to use or alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
about_builderexplain_runesearch_contentGrounds LLMs in real Old Norse: lemmas, mediopassive paradigms, English→Old Norse lookup.
AI-powered biblical research tools — lexicons, morphology, manuscripts, and more.
Characters, campaigns, adventures & worlds for D&D 5e/5.5e, Pathfinder, Savage Worlds, Fate, & more.
Read-only Wheel of Heaven corpus: myth search, primary texts, datasets, typed graph. CC0.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
