Syncretica MCP Server

create_pantheon

Add a new pantheon record to the mythological catalog by providing its name and optional cultural description, supporting organized cross-cultural dataset management.

Instructions

Create a new pantheon record in the catalog.

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_pantheon"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes	Name of the pantheon (e.g. 'Etruscan', 'Hittite')
`description`	No	Description of the culture, geographic origin, and traditions

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 behavioral burden and does not meet it. It never says whether the call fails on a duplicate name, what identifier or record is returned, whether the optional description can be added later via update_pantheon, or what permissions are required for a mutation.

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?

A single short sentence, front-loaded with the verb, with no filler. It is efficient, though it errs toward under-specification rather than being genuinely tight.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a simple two-parameter create tool with a fully documented schema and no output schema, the definition is minimally adequate. It still omits mutation-specific behavior (duplicate handling, return value, follow-up tools) that an agent would want before calling.

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 both 'name' and 'description' documented including an example and intent, so the schema does the work. The description adds no additional meaning about those parameters, which is the expected baseline here.

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 pantheon record') plus the destination ('in the catalog'), so an agent knows exactly what is produced. It does not distinguish itself from sibling creators such as create_god or create_myth, but those are separate entity types, so ambiguity is low.

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 guidance on when to use this versus siblings, no prerequisite (e.g. must the pantheon not already exist), and no exclusion. The only implied usage is 'when a new culture needs a catalog entry', which the agent must infer.

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