Syncretica MCP Server

get_pantheon

Retrieve a pantheon's details and deity roster by ID, optionally excluding associated gods for focused mythological dataset exploration.

Instructions

Retrieve details of a single pantheon including its deity roster.

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_pantheon"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	Pantheon ID
`include_gods`	No	Include deities associated with this pantheon

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 supplied, so the description carries the disclosure burden; it makes clear this is a read that returns details plus an associated deity roster. It says nothing about behavior for invalid or missing IDs, permissions, or response shape, leaving real gaps for an unannotated tool.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the resource and the notable return content; nothing extraneous.

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 full schema coverage and no output schema, the definition gives enough to call it correctly. Only edge-case behavior and a route to list/search alternatives are missing.

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 the schema already documents id and include_gods (including its default). The phrase 'including its deity roster' loosely ties to include_gods but adds no format, validation, or behavior detail beyond what the schema provides.

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 names a specific verb ('Retrieve') and resource ('details of a single pantheon'), and adds scope by noting the deity roster is included. This clearly separates it from create_pantheon/delete_pantheon/update_pantheon, though it does not explicitly contrast with get_god or list-style 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?

It implies the tool is for fetching one pantheon by ID, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no pointer to an alternative for listing or searching pantheons.

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