Look up spells, passives, or skills by UUID or name, resolving conflicts by highest layer. Use for BG3 mod data queries across base-game and mod layers.
A spell/passive/skill list by UUID or Name (highest layer wins).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| key | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the 'highest layer wins' resolution behavior, which is useful, but omits whether the operation is read-only, what permissions are required, and any return/pagination behavior beyond what the output schema covers.
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 a single efficient sentence with no wasted words, and the core lookup detail is front-loaded. It is appropriately compact, though its brevity contributes to the gaps noted in other dimensions.
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?
The tool has an output schema, so return values need not be explained, but the description still leaves key context missing. It does not explain the 'layers' parameter or provide usage guidance, which is insufficient for a tool with no annotations and 0% parameter description coverage.
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 compensate. It partially clarifies the required 'key' parameter as accepting UUID or Name, but the optional 'layers' parameter is completely unexplained in both the schema and the description.
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 identifies the resource (spell/passive/skill list) and lookup key (UUID or Name), but it does not use a clear action verb such as 'retrieve' or 'return'. It also does not differentiate this tool from siblings like bg3_spell_visuals or bg3_similar_spells, leaving the agent to infer what makes this list distinct.
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?
There is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only states what the tool is, not the context in which it should be selected.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.