Find every game data reference to a stat, status, passive, or GUID across stats, templates, progressions, and lists, so modders can trace where a token is used.
Everything that mentions token (entry name, status, passive, GUID...) in stats, templates,
progressions and lists.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| token | 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 does not state whether the operation is read-only (implied but unstated), how the limit parameter behaves, what layers restrict the search, or anything about ordering or pagination of results.
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 tight sentence with the scope front-loaded and no padding. It is efficient, though the parenthetical enumeration slightly crowds the core claim.
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 3-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and no annotations, the description is too thin — the behavior of `limit` and `layers` is left entirely to inference.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It hints that the token can match entry name, status, passive, or GUID, which adds real meaning to the required `token` param, but says nothing about `limit` or `layers`.
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?
The description conveys the result set well: anything mentioning the token across stats, templates, progressions, and lists. But it never names the operation (find/search/reference-lookup) and does nothing to distinguish itself from siblings like bg3_search or bg3_get_entry among 43 peers.
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?
No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as bg3_search, which plausibly overlaps. The agent must infer this is a reverse-lookup tool purely from the wording.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.