Fetch and merge Baldur's Gate 3 class or subclass progression nodes across mod layers by node UUID, letting higher layers override lower ones.
Progression nodes for a class/subclass (Name, e.g. 'Soulknife', or TableUUID), merged by node UUID so a higher layer's node replaces a lower one's.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | Yes | ||
| level | No | ||
| 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?
With no annotations, the description must carry the full behavioral burden. It adds useful merge semantics (higher layer's node replaces lower one's) and notes that the key may be a Name or TableUUID, but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, or what side effects exist.
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 one concise sentence with no filler, and the core resource and merge behavior are front-loaded. Every phrase contributes to understanding the tool.
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. However, for a three-parameter tool with no annotations and no schema descriptions, the description omits level and layers semantics and any usage context, leaving it substantially incomplete.
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%, so the description must document parameters. It explains the key parameter accepts a Name like 'Soulknife' or a TableUUID, but gives no meaning for the level or layers parameters, leaving two of three parameters undocumented.
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 the resource (progression nodes for a class/subclass) but gives no explicit verb, so the agent must infer whether the tool retrieves, builds, or merges progression data. It also does not differentiate itself from siblings such as bg3_lint_progressions.
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 provides no when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or alternatives despite many sibling tools. The agent has no routing signal for choosing this tool over related progression or level tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.