Syncretica MCP Server

search

Find and compare deities and myths across catalogs using semantic or keyword matching, with entity-type filters and adjustable result limits.

Instructions

Unified cross-catalog semantic or keyword search across deities and myths in the Syncretica comparative mythology manifold.

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": {
      "q": "<q>"
    },
    "name": "search"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`q`	Yes	Search query text (e.g. 'solar thunder sovereign', 'underworld judgment')
`mode`	No	Search mode: semantic (vector similarity), keyword (text matching), or auto	auto
`limit`	No	Maximum number of results to return (1-100)
`target_type`	No	Filter search results by entity type: all, god, or myth	all

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

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. It discloses that search can run semantically or by keyword and spans multiple catalogs, which is useful. It does not describe ranking, result shape, or pagination behavior, leaving meaningful gaps for a no-annotation tool.

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 the core action stated first. The phrase 'Syncretica comparative mythology manifold' is ornamental rather than informative, small waste in an otherwise efficient definition.

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?

There is no output schema and no annotations, so the description should ideally explain what a search returns and how results are ordered or scoped. It covers the general purpose adequately but leaves return semantics and permissions unaddressed for a four-parameter tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

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 q, mode, limit, and target_type thoroughly. The description only echoes the mode and entity-scope concepts without adding any syntax, defaulting, or format detail beyond the structured fields, so it contributes little on this dimension.

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 (search) and resources (deities and myths across catalogs), plus the supported modes (semantic or keyword). It distinguishes itself from single-entity getters like get_god or list_myths by emphasizing cross-catalog unification, though it does not explicitly name a sibling.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied: reach for this when you need to search across both gods and myths rather than browse a single catalog. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no mention of when find_counterparts or list_gods would be preferable.

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