Roll on a random oracle table (Ironsworn, Starforged, Maze Rats, etc)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| table | No | Specific table name (omit for random) | |
| system | Yes | RPG system slug (ironsworn, starforged, maze-rats, cairn, knave, fate-core) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It clearly states the action is random ('roll'), implying no state change, but it does not describe what is returned or how errors are handled. The 'random' qualifier is useful but limited; a note about output format would raise this score.
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?
A single sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, and free of any filler. Every word contributes to understanding, making it an excellent example of concise, effective description.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description and schema are mostly adequate. However, without annotations or an output schema, the description should mention what a roll returns (e.g., a result phrase, a die result, etc.) to be fully complete. It covers the input side but leaves the output side entirely implicit.
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 100% for both parameters. The description adds human-readable examples of systems ('Ironsworn, Starforged, Maze Rats') that align with the schema, but this is marginal added value since the schema already lists slugs and the optionality of 'table'.
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 uses a specific verb ('Roll') and resource ('random oracle table') and names example systems, clearly distinguishing from sibling tools like oracle_table_view or oracle_list_tables. The purpose is immediately obvious.
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 implies usage when a random oracle result is needed, and the 'etc.' hints at multiple systems, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer this tool over alternatives like oracle_ask or oracle_scene. Sibling context helps, but the description itself lacks explicit guidance.
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.
