list_spellsSearch D&D 5e spells by name or level. Returns spell indices, names, and levels for use with get_spell to fetch full details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| count | Yes | Total number of spells available | |
| spells | Yes | List of available spells |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "count": {
+ "description": "Total number of spells available",
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "spells": {
+ "description": "List of available spells",
+ "items": {
+ "properties": {
+ "index": {
+ "description": "Spell index identifier",
+ "type": "string"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Spell name",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "index",
+ "name"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+ },
+ "type": "array"
+ }
+ },
+ "required": [
+ "count",
+ "spells"
+ ],
+ "type": "object"
+}Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {}
+]Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds return value context (indices, names, levels) but creates confusion by implying search parameters ('by name or level') when the schema has none. It does not disclose this mismatch or explain how the search is actually performed.
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?
Two concise sentences with clear front-loading of the action and resource. Every word earns its place, with no filler 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?
The tool is simple with no parameters and an output schema, and the description covers the purpose and return format effectively. However, the reference to searching 'by name or level' is unresolved given the empty schema, leaving a completeness gap regarding how filtering is supposed to work.
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?
With zero parameters, the baseline is 4, but the description misleadingly implies filtering by name or level without providing any parameter names or formats. The schema is empty, so the description adds little beyond what the schema shows and actively creates ambiguity.
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 searches D&D 5e spells by name or level, with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from the sibling get_spell by noting that it returns indices, names, and levels for later use with get_spell.
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 explicitly positions this tool as a precursor to get_spell ('for use with get_spell to fetch full details'), giving clear guidance on when to use this tool and when to use an alternative.
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.
Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as the three ask_pipeworx variants, the memory tools (remember/recall/forget), and the subscription management tools. Additionally, the D&D tools are mixed with a large set of unrelated tools, causing confusion between domains.
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools follow verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_class, list_spells), while others use descriptive noun phrases (e.g., ai_visibility_check, polymarket_arbitrage). There is no clear, predictable pattern across the set.
With 35 tools, the count is high for a server ostensibly focused on D&D 5e. The inclusion of many unrelated tools from the Pipeworx ecosystem makes the set feel bloated and unfocused for the intended domain.
For the D&D 5e domain, only 4 tools exist (get_class, get_monster, get_spell, list_spells), which is severely incomplete. The remaining tools cover other domains, but they do not serve the server's primary purpose, leaving obvious gaps in functionality.