Look up card or relic rules text by name in your active game profile. Use it to check effects, costs, and keywords while playing.
Look up discovered card/relic rules text by name in the active game profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| item_type | No | all |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish it as a safe, non-destructive, closed-world read. The description adds a genuine behavioral constraint not in the schema: only 'discovered' items are searchable in the 'active game profile', which tells the agent results may be incomplete. It omits matching semantics (exact vs fuzzy) and result shape.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and subject lead, and every word contributes to the meaning.
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 three parameters, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent gets no help on filtering, result limits, or ranking behavior — the core concerns of a 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden, yet it only implies the query is name-based ('by name'). It says nothing about the limit parameter or the item_type filter (all/card/relic), which are undocumented except for the raw enum values.
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 states a specific verb ('look up'), a specific resource ('card/relic rules text'), and a scope ('by name in the active game profile'). This clearly separates it from the action/state siblings like take_action and get_game_state, though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives among the six sibling tools. The agent must infer the use case entirely from the tool name and upstream context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.