Syncretica MCP Server

list_pantheons

Retrieve world mythological pantheons registered in Syncretica with deity counts, filtering by name or description and paginating results; optionally include associated deities.

Instructions

List world mythological pantheons registered in Syncretica with deity counts.

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_pantheons"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Filter pantheons by name or description substring
`limit`	No	Pagination limit (default: 50)
`offset`	No	Pagination offset (default: 0)
`include_gods`	No	Include deities associated with each pantheon

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the burden; 'List' does implicitly communicate a non-destructive read, and the mention of deity counts hints at what results contain. However, it says nothing about ordering, page size behavior, or how the optional deity expansion changes payload size — gaps the schema only partly covers via defaults.

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 zero filler; the resource and its scope appear before the output detail. Nothing could be trimmed without losing information.

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, fully documented read tool with no output schema, the description is adequate but thin: it does not resolve whether 'deity counts' are always returned or only when include_gods is true, and it offers no routing signal among the many sibling list/get 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 every parameter is already documented in the schema, establishing a baseline of 3. The description's note about deity counts loosely connects to include_gods but adds no clarification of the substring filter or pagination semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 and resource ('List world mythological pantheons') plus a scope ('registered in Syncretica') and states what the results carry ('deity counts'). It does not differentiate itself from siblings such as get_pantheon or list_gods, but the core action is unambiguous.

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 guidance: nothing says to prefer this over get_pantheon for a single record, or whether it is the right tool for browsing versus searching. The only usage hint is implicit in the verb 'List'.

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