Retrieve the authoritative character record for any character ID. Provides a read-only snapshot, enabling game state checks without modifying the campaign.
Read one authoritative character sheet. Changes nothing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| character_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With annotations absent, the description carries the burden. It explicitly states 'Changes nothing,' which indicates a read-only behavior and is useful. However, it does not disclose anything else like authorization requirements, error conditions, or the structure of the returned data, leaving gaps for an agent.
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?
The description is seven words and states the core purpose and the read-only nature upfront. It is maximally concise with no filler, and the key information is immediately visible.
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?
For a simple one-parameter read tool, the description is minimally adequate, but it lacks context on return format, what 'authoritative' implies, and any edge cases. Given no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more detail to fully prepare an agent, yet it remains borderline acceptable.
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 0%, so the description must compensate for the single parameter 'character_id'. The description does not reference the parameter at all, nor explain how to obtain it or what format it should take. The schema only provides type 'string', which is insufficient for an agent to correctly construct the call.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('authoritative character sheet'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools that might also involve reading character data, such as character_options, though the word 'authoritative' hints at a canonical source.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., whether the character must exist), and no exclusions. The description gives no context for an agent to decide between this and other character-related tools beyond the bare purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.