WritersLogic business agents

dice-roll

Verifiable dice roll from a seed, with a re-derivable transcript — Rolls dice notation (for example 4d6kh3+2) from a caller seed with a documented SHA-256 counter-mode stream and returns every die, the kept/dropped marks and a full draw transcript, for agents and referees that need a roll anyone can re-derive. Optionally checks a claimed total or claimed faces against the re-derived roll. Does NOT provide unpredictable randomness: the seed is public input, so any

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "notation": "<notation>",
      "seed": "<seed>"
    },
    "name": "dice-roll"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`seed`	Yes	Caller seed string. Public: the outcome is a pure function of notation and seed.
`notation`	Yes	Dice notation: terms of NdM (N 1-100, M 2-1000) or integers joined by + and -; optional kh/kl/dh/dl with a count on a group. At most 20 groups and 1000 dice.
`expectRolls`	No	Optional claimed faces in notation order, before keep/drop marks.
`expectTotal`	No	Optional claimed total to verify.
`includeTranscript`	No	Default true. False drops blocks and draws (the transcript digest stays).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 15, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the whole burden and mostly discharges it: it discloses the deterministic algorithm (SHA-256 counter-mode), that the seed is public input and therefore outcomes are a pure function of notation+seed, that the transcript is returned, and that verification of a claimed total/faces is optional. Gaps remain: it never states that the operation is side-effect-free, and the security caveat is truncated mid-sentence.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The purpose is front-loaded, but the body is a single sprawling sentence packing notation, algorithm, return contents, audience and a security caveat. The text also terminates mid-word ('so any'), which leaves a dangling fragment that should either be finished or removed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a five-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description does substantial work: it explains the deterministic model, what the return includes, and what verification does. It falls short only because the closing caveat about non-randomness is truncated, leaving the single most important behavioral warning (do not use for secrets/security) unfinished.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so all five parameters are already documented in the input schema; the baseline is therefore 3. The description gestures at expectTotal/expectRolls ('optionally checks a claimed total or claimed faces against the re-derived roll') but adds no syntax or matching semantics beyond the schema, and never explains the includeTranscript toggle other than implying a transcript exists.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The first clause names a specific verb and resource — a verifiable dice roll produced from a caller seed — and the rest pins down the notation dialect (4d6kh3+2), the SHA-256 counter-mode stream, and the returned artifacts (every die, kept/dropped marks, full transcript). It also explicitly contrasts itself with unpredictable RNG, so an agent can tell what class of tool this is without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a clear audience/use condition ('for agents and referees that need a roll anyone can re-derive') and an explicit exclusion ('Does NOT provide unpredictable randomness'). What is missing is the tail of that exclusion — the text is cut off mid-sentence ('so any'), so the full when-not guidance never lands, and no alternative tool is named.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All WritersLogic business agents tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?