Look up a spell's visual and audio kit — effects, animations, sounds, and icon — to reuse vanilla VFX in Baldur's Gate 3 mods.
The visual/audio kit of a spell: effects, animations, sounds, icon - for reusing vanilla VFX.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | 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 behavioral burden. It does not state whether this is a read-only lookup, what happens for an unknown spell name, whether layers must pre-exist, or any side effects. Only the conceptual contents of the result are hinted at.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the resource and lists components efficiently. It is well-sized for the amount of information conveyed, though it omits actionable detail rather than being verbose.
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 described. But for a tool with a required name parameter, an undocumented layers parameter, and no annotations, the description leaves too much unspecified for an agent to invoke it confidently.
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% for both parameters. The description implies 'name' is a spell name, which adds slight meaning, but the optional 'layers' parameter is never mentioned, so the agent gets no guidance on what layers are or how filtering by them behaves.
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 names the resource (a spell's visual/audio kit) and enumerates its components (effects, animations, sounds, icon), which is informative. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb, so the agent cannot tell whether this retrieves, lists, or generates visuals. It also does not distinguish itself from sibling bg3_spell_list or bg3_effect.
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 trailing phrase 'for reusing vanilla VFX' gestures at a use case but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative. With siblings like bg3_spell_list, bg3_effect, and bg3_search_effects present, an agent has no routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.