Syncretica MCP Server

populate_god_myth

Generates 8–10 structured mythological themes for a specified deity using LLM extraction, helping populate deity records with coherent myth content.

Instructions

Generate 8-10 structured mythological themes for a deity via LLM extraction.

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": "populate_god_myth"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`id`	Yes	God ID
`sync`	No	If true, wait synchronously for myth generation to complete

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that it generates 8-10 themes via LLM, but doesn't say whether existing themes are overwritten or appended, whether it's idempotent, what cost/latency is involved, or what happens for an invalid god id. For a generation/mutation tool with zero annotations this is a substantial gap.

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?

One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, with zero waste. It's arguably too terse for the tool's complexity, but nothing is padded or buried.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey behavioral and result context, yet it doesn't describe what the generated themes look like structurally or what async (sync=false) returns. Given the tool performs LLM generation with real cost and latency, the definition is under-specified.

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 coverage is 100%, so both the id and sync parameters are fully documented in the schema, including the synchronous-wait semantics of sync. The description adds no parameter meaning beyond that; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific action for a specific resource (generating mythological themes for a deity via LLM extraction) and includes a quantity (8-10). However, it is terse and does not clearly distinguish itself from siblings like populate_myths_bulk, which likely also generates myths. The mechanism ('LLM extraction') is mentioned, which helps.

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?

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. Nothing tells an agent to use this for a single god versus populate_gods_bulk or populate_myths_bulk for many. The sync parameter's tradeoff (waiting synchronously) is only in the schema.

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