Verify whether a D&D 5e resource slug is available, would collide with an existing entry, or has changed from its original, preventing duplicate or broken database records.
Check if a slug exists, would collide, or has been modified from an existing entry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | Slug to check | |
| document_slug | No | Source book context | |
| original_slug | No | Original slug if editing (to detect mutations) | |
| resource_type | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It mentions three check modes but omits whether the tool is read-only, its side effects, authentication needs, or rate limits.
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 wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it could be slightly clearer in phrasing.
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 four parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the return format, side effects, or how to interpret the three check modes.
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 75%, with three of four parameters documented in the schema. The description adds no parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the schema does the heavy lifting.
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's purpose: checking a slug for existence, collision, or modification. It uses a specific verb and resource, but does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like validate_entry or diff.
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 gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It implies slug validation but does not state prerequisites, context, or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.