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 | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
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.
