Search RPG entities (spells, monsters, classes, items) across all systems
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | No | Alias for system | |
| limit | No | Max results (default 10) | |
| query | Yes | Search term | |
| system | No | Limit to system (dnd-5e, pathfinder-1e, etc) | |
| category | No | Entity category (spell, monster, class, item) |
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 conveys a read-only search operation and the cross-system scope, which are useful behavioral traits. However, it does not disclose matching behavior, result format, pagination, or default category behavior, leaving significant gaps.
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 a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, making it easy to parse quickly.
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 five parameters, full schema coverage, and absence of an output schema, the description provides sufficient high-level context for selecting the tool. It lacks detail about return values and expected result structure, but the schema covers parameter semantics, so the description is reasonably complete for this search tool.
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?
The input schema provides 100% coverage with per-parameter descriptions. The description adds value by enumerating the entity categories (spell, monster, class, item) and clarifying that the search operates 'across all systems' by default, complementing the optional system/category filters.
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?
Description uses the specific verb 'Search' and identifies the resource as 'RPG entities', enumerates entity types (spells, monsters, classes, items), and states the cross-system scope. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like rpg_get_entity (single entity lookup) and rpg_browse_category (category browsing).
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 makes the intended use clear: search RPG entities across all systems. It does not explicitly provide exclusions or alternatives, but the phrase 'across all systems' gives clear context for when this tool is appropriate versus more targeted 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.
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.
