Generate a scene using oracle tables. With a recipe, rolls each table in the recipe, resolves cross-references, and composes a narrative sentence. Without, picks random tables.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| type | No | Scene type for random mode (default: event) | |
| recipe | No | Recipe ID (from oracle_list_recipes) — rolls each table in the recipe | |
| region | No | Region for Starforged region-aware recipes | |
| system | No | RPG system slug (default: ironsworn) |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the transparency burden. It explains the core behavior: rolling tables, resolving cross-references, composing a narrative sentence, or selecting random tables. It does not disclose the return format, potential errors, or side effects, but for a generation tool this is a reasonable level of 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 main action and concise in covering both usage modes. Every word earns its place; no extraneous information.
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?
With no output schema, the description should clarify what the tool returns. It implies a narrative sentence but does not state the return type explicitly. It also omits details about how region and system parameters affect recipes. For a moderate-complexity tool, this is adequate but has clear 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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the behavioral implications of the recipe parameter (resolving cross-references, composing a narrative) and clarifying the random mode's default behavior. This contextualizes how the parameters interact.
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: 'Generate a scene using oracle tables.' It specifies the two modes (with recipe and without), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like oracle_roll that handle single rolls. The phrase 'composes a narrative sentence' further differentiates it as a scene generator.
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?
Usage context is implied through the two modes ('With a recipe' vs 'Without'), which tells the agent when each mode is applicable. However, there is no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over siblings like oracle_encounter or oracle_interpret, and no mention of when not to use it.
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.
