Syncretica MCP Server

list_myths

List and filter myths by keyword, theme, deity, or pantheon, returning structured propositions and optional embedding metadata for research and analysis.

Instructions

List and filter mythologies with structured propositions and embedding metadata.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_myths"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Keyword search across myth proposition texts
`limit`	No	Pagination limit (default: 50)
`theme`	No	Filter by theme key or proposition substring
`god_id`	No	Filter by deity ID
`offset`	No	Pagination offset (default: 0)
`pantheon_id`	No	Filter by pantheon ID
`include_embedding`	No	Include raw 1024-float vector array

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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only listing and gestures at return content (propositions, embedding metadata), but says nothing about pagination behavior, default page size, result ordering, or whether the 1024-float vectors are expensive to fetch.

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 wasted words. The only cost is that it is perhaps too terse for a seven-parameter filtered list tool.

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?

With full schema coverage and no output schema, the description does not need to enumerate filters, and it does mention the proposition/embedding payload. However, for a tool with seven optional filters and an opt-in heavyweight embedding array, the absence of any note on cost or result shape leaves a meaningful gap.

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 every one of the seven parameters (q, theme, god_id, pantheon_id, limit, offset, include_embedding) is already documented in the schema. The description adds only a loose nod to embeddings and propositions, which is the baseline expectation rather than added meaning.

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?

"List and filter mythologies" gives a specific verb plus resource, and "structured propositions and embedding metadata" hints at the record shape. It does not distinguish itself from siblings like get_myth (single-record retrieval) or list_gods, leaving the agent to infer the myth-vs-god split from the name alone.

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 or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent must infer from the sibling names that get_myth is for a single myth and that create_myth/delete_myth are separate operations; the description offers nothing on this.

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