List D&D 5e spells and filter by level or school to find matching options for character builds, encounters, or reference.
List D&D 5e spells, optionally filtered.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| level | No | Filter by spell level (0-9) | |
| school | No | Filter by school (e.g. 'evocation') |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.11Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the safety profile is well covered. The description adds little behavioral detail beyond noting optional filtering, and does not discuss pagination or result size.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
It is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler content. For a simple read-only list tool, this is appropriately sized.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple, read-only, and has complete parameter documentation plus rich annotations, so an agent can invoke it correctly. Still, the description is minimal and leaves the agent to infer list behavior such as result completeness or pagination.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both the level and school filters are fully documented in the schema. The description only says results are 'optionally filtered' and adds no syntax, defaults, or interaction details beyond the structured fields.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb and resource: 'List D&D 5e spells.' It also indicates optional filtering, which helps distinguish it from a single-spell fetch. However, it does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling dnd_get_spell.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'optionally filtered' implies that the filters can narrow results, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this list tool versus dnd_get_spell, nor any stated exclusions or prerequisites. Usage must largely be inferred from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.