LorAI MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_game_data_items

Retrieve multiple game data items from a collection by specifying comma-separated IDs. More efficient than fetching each item individually.

Instructions

Return items from a static game data collection by comma-separated ids.

More efficient than calling get_game_data_item multiple times.

Example: get_game_data_items(collection='cards', item_ids='1,2,3')

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "collection": "<collection>",
      "item_ids": "<item_ids>"
    },
    "name": "get_game_data_items"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`collection`	Yes
`item_ids`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 14, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior2/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only indicates basic read behavior without disclosing traits like error handling, ordering, or limits. Limited transparency beyond the obvious.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences with clear structure: function, efficiency benefit, and example. No wasted words; fully front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given that an output schema exists, the description does not need to detail return values. It adequately covers the core functionality and efficiency benefit. Could mention that collection is a static data category, but overall complete enough.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has no descriptions (0% coverage). The description adds meaning for 'item_ids' by stating they are comma-separated and provides an example. However, the 'collection' parameter is not explained, and no enumeration of valid collections is given.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns items from a static game data collection, specifying the verb 'Return' and the resource. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'get_game_data_item' by noting efficiency for multiple IDs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states it is more efficient than calling get_game_data_item multiple times, giving clear guidance on when to use this tool. No exclusion criteria are provided, but the context is sufficient.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.