D&D 5e SRD Oracle

Discover Battle Acts

discover_battle_acts

Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the current battle frontier and available acts without changing state. Use it to see if setup, pending holes, or executable acts remain, then choose the correct next action.

Instructions

Read the Battle's current checkpoint/frontier and available acts without changing state. Call after start_battle or any Battle mutation to learn whether setup, pending holes, or executable acts are present; copy a returned subject exactly into resolve_battle_act when initialHoles is empty, otherwise use fill_battle_hole. If the frontier contains pending holes or an interrupt decision, finish it before choosing another act. Returns the same envelope as read_battle_state.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`playSessionId`	Yes	Play Session handle returned by create_play_session for follow-up stateful calls in the same local process or authenticated account.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds sequencing guidance, conditional routing, and notes that it returns the same envelope as read_battle_state, which is useful beyond the annotations.

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?

Three dense sentences with the core read operation front-loaded. Every sentence earns its place by adding actionable routing or sequencing guidance without filler.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Covers when to call, what to check, how to route follow-up actions, and an ordering constraint. With an output schema present and the return envelope identified, the agent has what it needs to call correctly.

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 coverage is 100%: the single playSessionId parameter is already fully described with type, pattern, and semantics. The description adds no additional parameter detail, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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

Purpose5/5

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

States a specific verb and resource: 'Read the Battle's current checkpoint/frontier and available acts without changing state.' This clearly distinguishes discovery from mutating siblings like fill_battle_hole and resolve_battle_act.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Gives explicit trigger conditions ('Call after start_battle or any Battle mutation'), conditional routing ('copy a returned subject exactly into resolve_battle_act when initialHoles is empty, otherwise use fill_battle_hole'), and an ordering constraint for pending holes or interrupt decisions.

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