get-roll-tableFetch a roll table with settings and every entry (id, range, weight, text, drawn) so the entry ids can be used for updates.
Read one roll table with its settings and every entry: id, range, weight, text and whether it is drawn. The entry ids are what update-roll-table needs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tableId | Yes | Id or exact name of the table |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v14.2609.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by disclosing what the response contains (settings and entries with fields) beyond the annotations, giving the agent a clear expectation of output structure.
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 with no wasted words. It front-loads the core action and uses the second sentence to provide a useful pointer about entry ids for update-roll-table, making every sentence earn its place.
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 single-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently states what is returned (settings and entries with fields) and why the data matters. It lacks only peripheral details like error cases or response formatting, which are not critical for a read-only tool with annotations covering safety.
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% and the single parameter tableId is fully described in the schema as 'Id or exact name of the table'. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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 the specific verb 'Read' and clearly identifies the resource as 'one roll table' with 'settings and every entry'. It explicitly differentiates from sibling list-roll-tables by emphasizing the singular and detailed nature of the read, and even mentions the downstream need for update-roll-table.
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 when to use the tool (when you need a single table's full entries and entry ids for update-roll-table) and the singular scope distinguishes it from list-roll-tables. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when not to use it, leaving some inference to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.