Skip to main content
Glama

combat_action

Resolve weapon attacks and saving throw spells in D&D 5e campaigns. Applies damage to target HP, triggers concentration checks, and returns formatted mechanical outcomes for combat actions.

Instructions

Resolve a combat action via the pipeline, apply results, and return a formatted outcome.

Supports weapon attacks (melee/ranged) and saving throw spells. Automatically applies damage to the target's HP, triggers concentration checks, and reports the full mechanical outcome. This is additive -- it does not replace manual roll_dice workflows.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
attackerYesName of the attacking character or NPC
targetYesName of the target character or NPC
action_typeNoAction type: 'attack' for weapon/melee/ranged, 'save_spell' for saving throw spellsattack
weapon_or_spellNoWeapon name (from inventory) or spell name. None uses equipped main weapon.
damage_diceNoOverride damage dice (e.g., '8d6' for fireball). Only for save_spell actions.
damage_typeNoDamage type (e.g., 'fire', 'slashing'). Only for save_spell actions.
save_abilityNoSaving throw ability (e.g., 'dexterity'). Required for save_spell actions.
half_on_saveNoWhether successful save deals half damage. Only for save_spell actions.
spell_dcNoOverride spell save DC. Only for save_spell actions.
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It describes key behaviors: automatically applies damage to HP, triggers concentration checks, returns formatted outcomes, and is additive to manual workflows. However, it lacks details on error conditions, side effects on game state, or performance characteristics like rate limits. The description doesn't contradict any annotations since none exist.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is efficiently structured in three sentences with zero waste. The first sentence states the core purpose, the second details supported action types and automatic behaviors, and the third clarifies the additive nature relative to other workflows. Every sentence adds essential information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity of a combat resolution tool with 9 parameters and no output schema, the description provides adequate but incomplete context. It covers the purpose, supported action types, and key behaviors, but lacks details about return values, error handling, or how it integrates with the broader combat system. Without annotations or output schema, more behavioral context would be helpful.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 all 9 parameters thoroughly. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema - it mentions support for weapon attacks and saving throw spells which aligns with 'action_type', and implies some parameter usage context. With high schema coverage, the baseline is 3 even with limited param info in the description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Resolve a combat action via the pipeline, apply results, and return a formatted outcome.' It specifies support for weapon attacks and saving throw spells, and mentions automatic application of damage, concentration checks, and outcome reporting. However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'roll_dice' beyond stating it's additive rather than a replacement.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context for when to use this tool: for resolving combat actions involving weapon attacks or saving throw spells. It explicitly mentions it's additive and doesn't replace 'roll_dice' workflows, giving some guidance on alternatives. However, it doesn't specify when NOT to use it or compare it to other combat-related siblings like 'apply_effect' or 'next_turn'.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Polloinfilzato/dm20-protocol'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server