Syncretica MCP Server

get_god

Retrieve a deity’s complete profile—pantheon, thematic attributes, and myth propositions—by ID, with optional myth-theme decomposition and vector embedding inclusion.

Instructions

Retrieve full profile of a deity including pantheon, thematic attributes, and myth propositions.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_god"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`id`	Yes	God ID
`include_myth`	No	Include decomposed myth themes
`include_embedding`	No	Include raw 1024-dim vector embedding

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations at all, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does disclose the shape of what comes back (pantheon, attributes, myth propositions), which is useful. However, it says nothing about read-only/safety expectations, the cost of the optional 1024-dim embedding, or what happens when a god ID doesn't exist.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the return contents are listed immediately. The phrase 'myth propositions' is slightly vague versus the schema's 'decomposed myth themes', but that is minor.

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 three-parameter read tool with full schema coverage and no output schema, the description is adequate: it signals the returned content and the optional myth expansion. It still omits guidance on the potentially heavy embedding flag and on failure behavior, which matters given no annotations exist.

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%, so all three parameters are already documented, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds only the notion of myth content via 'myth propositions' and says nothing about the include_embedding vector or default behaviors beyond the schema.

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 (Retrieve) and a specific resource (full profile of a deity), then enumerates the payload (pantheon, thematic attributes, myth propositions), which lets an agent separate it from list_gods or get_myth. The only gap is that it doesn't explicitly name those siblings.

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 mention of alternatives such as list_gods for discovery or get_myth for myth-only lookups. Retrieval-by-ID usage is only implied by the required id parameter rather than stated in the description.

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