Skip to main content
Glama
frap129

LoreKeeper MCP

search_all

Search across all D&D 5e content types—spells, creatures, items, feats, backgrounds—with semantic matching and typo tolerance. Filter by document or content type to narrow results.

Instructions

Search across all D&D content with semantic matching.

This tool uses Open5e's unified search endpoint to find content across multiple types (spells, creatures, items, etc.) with fuzzy typo tolerance and semantic conceptual matching. Perfect for exploratory searches like "find anything related to fire" or when you're not sure of exact spelling.

Semantic search is always enabled to provide the best conceptual matching.

Examples: # Cross-entity search search_all(query="dragon") # Finds dragons, dragon spells, etc.

# Typo-tolerant search
search_all(query="firbal")  # Finds "Fireball" despite typo

# Concept-based search
search_all(query="healing magic")  # Finds healing spells

# Type-filtered search
search_all(query="fire", content_types=["Spell"])  # Only spells

# Document-filtered search
search_all(query="fireball", documents=["srd-5e"])
search_all(query="spell", documents=["srd-5e", "tce"])

Args: query: Search term (handles typos and concepts automatically) content_types: Limit to specific types: ["Spell", "Creature", "Item", "Background", "Feat"]. Default None searches all content types. documents: Filter results to specific documents. Provide list of document names from list_documents() tool. Post-filters search results by document field. Examples: ["srd-5e"], ["srd-5e", "tce"]. limit: Maximum number of results to return (default 20)

Returns: List of content dictionaries with varied structure based on content type. Each result includes a 'type' or 'model' field indicating content type.

Raises: ApiError: If the API request fails due to network issues or errors

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes
documentsNo
content_typesNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: semantic matching is always enabled, typo tolerance, post-filtering by document, return structure ('type' or 'model' field), and raising of ApiError. This is comprehensive and provides context beyond what annotations would offer.

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 well-structured with a description, examples, args, returns, and raises sections. It is longer than average but every sentence and example contributes value—there is no filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, 1 required, varied output types, no annotations), the description covers all essential aspects: use cases, parameter semantics, return structure, and error handling. It even includes examples for different filtering scenarios, making it fully complete for an agent to use.

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

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description's Args section explains every parameter in detail: query handles typos and concepts, content_types lists allowed values and default, documents explains post-filtering and gives examples, limit states default. This significantly adds meaning beyond the bare schema.

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?

The description clearly states the tool 'Search across all D&D content with semantic matching,' using a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (search_spell, search_creature, etc.) by covering multiple content types simultaneously, which is explicitly mentioned.

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 when-to-use guidance: 'Perfect for exploratory searches' and 'when you're not sure of exact spelling.' While it doesn't explicitly say 'use search_spell for exact spell searches,' the contrast with sibling tool names and the emphasis on cross-entity search imply the alternative. No explicit exclusions are stated.

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/frap129/lorekeeper-mcp'

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