Roll dice using standard notation (e.g. 2d6+3, 4d8, d20). Supports comma-separated pools and keep-high/low (4d6kh3).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | No | Number of times to roll (default 1) | |
| notation | No | Dice notation (e.g. 2d6+3, 4d6kh3, 3d8,1d12+2) | |
| expression | No | Alias for notation |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It lists supported features (comma-separated pools, keep/high-low) but does not describe the return format, error behavior, or randomness characteristics. This is a partial gap in transparency.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the core action, and uses clear examples. Every word earns its place with no fluff or 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?
For a simple dice-rolling tool, the description covers the main capability and supported syntax. It lacks explicit return-value details and edge-case handling, but given the tool's simplicity and complete parameter schema, this is a minor shortfall.
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%, with each parameter already described in the schema. The description adds examples and clarifies the notation syntax, but does not elaborate on the 'count' parameter or the relationship between 'notation' and 'expression'. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
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 purpose with a specific verb ('Roll dice') and resource, and provides concrete examples. It distinguishes itself from siblings like dice_odds (which calculates odds) and coin_flip by focusing on standard dice notation.
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 clear context for using this tool (rolling dice with standard notation) and implies it is for rolling, not for calculating odds. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, leaving some room for ambiguity.
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.
Most tools have clear prefixes (chess_, play_, hex_, oracle_, rpg_, ti4_) that separate concerns, but overlap exists between deprecated chess_* tools and the newer play_* equivalents, plus rpg_random_encounter and oracle_encounter both generate encounters. Descriptions help disambiguate, but the redundancy could mislead agents.
Many tools follow a domain_verb_noun pattern (hex_generate_map, play_get_moves, rpg_search_entities), but there are notable exceptions like dice_roll, game_deck_create, jam_status, and random_player_order that mix noun-first and verb-last conventions. The inconsistent ordering makes it harder to predict tool names.
81 tools is excessive even for a broad games toolkit; the deprecated chess_* tools alone add unnecessary bulk. While the scope is wide, the count exceeds practical limits and could be consolidated into fewer, more focused tools.
The toolkit covers a wide variety of game needs: dice, cards, hex maps, chess, RPGs, TI4, jam management, and galleries. Minor gaps like the score tracker lacking a retrieval method and the absence of some lifecycle operations keep it from being perfect, but core workflows are well covered.
