LPC Character Generator — MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_items

Filter and retrieve LPC character items by animation, body type, or license to build custom sprite sheets.

Instructions

Searches items. All filters are optional and combine: query: words in the name/id (all must match), e.g. "leather armour". category: id prefix, e.g. 'hair', 'torso/shirts', 'weapons/sword'. body_type: only items that exist for this body (male, female, teen...). animation: only items with art for this animation (idle, walk, slash...) for body_type (or male if body_type is not given). type_name: item type (hair, clothes, legs, shoes, weapon, hat...). complete_only: only items with every animation. Otherwise complete items come first. licenses: only items whose every art part is available under one of these license families (CC0, CC-BY, CC-BY-SA, OGA-BY, GPL). For DRM stores (Steam, App Store) use ["CC0", "OGA-BY"]. Each result has drm_safe. Each result says whether it is complete and which animations are missing (for body_type or male).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`query`	No
`category`	No
`licenses`	No
`animation`	No
`body_type`	No
`type_name`	No
`complete_only`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.0Oct 1, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / licenses

Added value: +{
+  "anyOf": [
+    {
+      "items": {
+        "type": "string"
+      },
+      "type": "array"
+    },
+    {
+      "type": "null"
+    }
+  ],
+  "default": null,
+  "title": "Licenses"
+}

First observedv0.1.0Sep 28, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does notable work: it discloses the AND semantics of 'query' words, the prefix matching of 'category', the body_type-derived default for 'animation', the ordering side-effect of 'complete_only', and the intersection logic of 'licenses'. It omits pagination behavior and the meaning of 'limit', plus any auth/rate-limit notes, which keeps it short of a 5.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Front-loaded with the core action and the key fact that all filters are optional, then one compact line per parameter with examples. Dense but every line earns its place; the only slack is the trailing sentence about result completeness, which restates earlier content rather than adding new guidance.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For an 8-parameter, zero-schema-coverage search tool, the description covers the filter semantics, a practical license-selection rule, and the shape of each result's completeness fields. Since an output schema exists, it does not need to enumerate return values, so nothing essential is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate, and it explains 7 of them with formats and examples (category prefixes like 'torso/shirts', animation ids like 'slash', license families). Only 'limit' is left undocumented, and the per-result field explanation (complete, missing animations, drm_safe) adds value the flat schema cannot.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a specific verb+resource ('Searches items') and immediately characterizes the whole filter set as optional and combinable, which tells an agent this is a broad query tool. It does not, however, differentiate itself from siblings like get_item or list_categories, which would require either naming them or stating the boundary.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied through per-filter explanations and the concrete example ('leather armour'), plus practical routing advice for DRM stores ('use ["CC0", "OGA-BY"]'). But there is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not, and no mention of the sibling get_item for single-item lookups, leaving the agent to infer the search-vs-fetch choice.

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

Deploy Server