Syncretica MCP Server

create_god

Creates a new deity record tied to a pantheon, letting you define the name, divine roles, description, and thematic tags for cross-cultural mythological cataloging.

Instructions

Create a new deity record associated with a pantheon.

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": {
      "pantheon_id": "<pantheon_id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_god"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes	Name of the deity
`themes`	No	Thematic tags (e.g. ['thunder', 'war', 'sky'])
`description`	No	Scholarly description and divine roles
`pantheon_id`	Yes	Pantheon ID

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It signals a write operation but says nothing about duplicate-name handling, whether an unknown pantheon_id fails, whether created records are immediately retrievable, or what the response contains.

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?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no wasted words. It is efficient, though borderline undersized for a creation tool with four parameters.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the relevant behavioral details: validation behavior, pantheon existence requirements, and result shape. The schema covers the inputs, but the agent gets no help on the consequences of calling it.

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 description coverage is 100%, with every property already documented, including the example themes list and the pantheon_id constraints. The description adds no meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Create a new deity record") and adds scope ("associated with a pantheon"). It is clear on its own, but it does not distinguish itself from siblings like create_myth, create_pantheon, or populate_god_myth, so an agent must infer 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 Guidelines2/5

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

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no alternatives are named. Nothing indicates whether the pantheon must already exist or how this differs from other creation tools in the sibling set.

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