Syncretica MCP Server

get_myth

Retrieve a myth by ID to access its decomposed themes and associated deity, with optional embedding, for cross-cultural analysis.

Instructions

Retrieve details of a myth including its 8-10 decomposed themes and associated deity.

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_myth"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Myth ID
`include_embedding`	No	Include raw 1024-dim vector embedding

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It usefully says the response includes 8-10 decomposed themes and an associated deity, and 'Retrieve' implies a read operation, but it does not mention error behavior for missing IDs, permission requirements, or why one might set include_embedding.

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?

The definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. It names the resource and the key return contents immediately.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with a fully described schema and no output schema, this is largely complete: it identifies the resource and summarizes the return payload. The main omission is guidance on when to use it versus list_myths or other myth-related tools.

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 both the 'id' and 'include_embedding' parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds no further parameter semantics, making the baseline 3 appropriate.

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 ('Retrieve') and resource ('myth'), and adds that it returns decomposed themes and associated deity. It distinguishes clearly from list_myths and mutation siblings like create_myth/update_myth by implying single-record retrieval, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of when not to use it, and no named alternative such as list_myths for browsing. The required 'id' parameter implies lookup by ID, but the description leaves the agent to infer this from the schema.

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