Fetch multiple D&D 5e resources in one request, mixing types like spells, monsters, classes, and items to avoid repeated calls.
Retrieve multiple resources in a single call. Supports mixed resource types.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| requests | Yes | Array of resource requests (max 50) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. For a batch operation, the critical traits – partial-failure semantics, whether the call fails atomically, result ordering, and the 50-item cap (which appears only in the schema) – are not addressed. 'Supports mixed resource types' largely repeats what the schema enum already shows.
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 tight sentences with zero waste, and the core capability (multiple resources, single call) is front-loaded.
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 batch-read tool with a self-documenting schema, the definition is minimally adequate. However, with no output schema and no annotations, it omits the behavioral traits (failure handling, ordering) an agent would need to call it correctly in edge cases.
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%, so the schema already documents the `requests` array with its max-50 constraint and the resource_type enum. The description adds no parameter-level detail (syntax, format, ordering) beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
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?
States a specific verb (retrieve), a clear resource (multiple resources), and the batch scope ('in a single call'), which implicitly distinguishes it from the singular `get` sibling. It does not name siblings explicitly, but an agent can infer the batch-vs-single distinction.
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 is only implied: the agent can infer 'use when retrieving several resources at once.' There is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance versus repeated `get` calls, `search`, or `list`, and no mention of prerequisites or rate limits.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.