Look up localization handles or search localized text in Baldur's Gate 3 game data, including mod layers, to resolve strings.
Look up a localization handle (e.g. h1a950eaag...), or search localized text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| layers | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 burden. It never states that this is a read-only operation, what the layers parameter filters, pagination/limit behavior, or what scope of localization data is searched. For a search tool with zero annotation coverage this is a notable gap.
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?
A single well-formed sentence with no filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. However, given 3 undocumented parameters and two distinct operating modes, this level of brevity leaves the definition under-specified rather than genuinely concise.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. Still, the description omits any mention of the layers filter, the limit default, or how handle-lookup and text-search modes differ — all of which an agent needs to call this tool correctly.
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 0% across 3 parameters. The description explains only the 'query' parameter's handle form; 'layers' and 'limit' are left entirely undocumented in both schema and description. It adds a little meaning for query but does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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+resource: looking up a localization handle, or searching localized text. The example handle format helps an agent recognize the input type. It does not distinguish itself from the general-purpose sibling bg3_search, which leaves some ambiguity.
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 offers two modes ('look up a handle' or 'search localized text') but never says when to pick one over the other, and gives no routing against siblings like bg3_search or bg3_get_entry. Nothing tells the agent prerequisites or the difference between handle lookup and free-text search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.