Fantasy Gamebook Engine

by rc-ventura

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

resolve_combat_round

Resolve one combat round, with an optional luck test to determine hit outcome.

Instructions

Resolve one combat round, optionally testing luck on the hit.

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": {
      "combat_id": "<combat_id>",
      "use_luck": "<use_luck>"
    },
    "name": "resolve_combat_round"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`use_luck`	Yes
`combat_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ended`	No
`hitter`	Yes
`winner`	No
`hero_as`	Yes
`enemy_as`	Yes
`luck_used`	No
`hero_stamina`	Yes
`enemy_stamina`	Yes
`damage_applied`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 7, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description bears full responsibility. It does not disclose side effects (e.g., modifies character health, advances state), potential destructiveness, or required permissions. The phrase 'resolve one combat round' is vague.

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?

Single sentence, no wasted words. However, lacks any structure like bullet points or sections to improve readability.

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?

Despite having an output schema, the description omits crucial context: what happens to the combat state after resolution, whether it advances to next round, and how luck test integrates. Sibling tools like start_combat and end_combat imply a lifecycle not described here.

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 has 0% description coverage. Description only briefly mentions 'use_luck' as optional luck testing but does not explain 'combat_id' meaning or how 'use_luck' changes behavior. Minimal added value.

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

Purpose5/5

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

Description clearly states 'Resolve one combat round' with a specific verb and resource. It also adds 'optionally testing luck on the hit', which differentiates from siblings like test_luck or start_combat.

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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like flee_combat or end_combat. No prerequisites or conditions mentioned (e.g., must have an active combat).

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

Deploy Server