Look up specific Twilight Imperium 4 rules or game concepts from the Living Rules Reference by keyword, such as 'space combat' or 'agenda phase'.
Look up a specific rule or game concept from the TI4 Living Rules Reference.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| keyword | Yes | Rule keyword or concept, e.g. 'space combat', 'agenda phase' |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. 'Look up' implies a read-only retrieval, but nothing is said about whether lookups are exact or fuzzy, whether multiple entries can be returned, what the response contains, or what happens when the keyword is not found.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though the brevity is part of why usage and return behavior go unaddressed.
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 one-parameter read-only lookup with no output schema, the description is minimally viable: the schema fully covers the input and the return shape need not be explained. However, it is thin for a tool among 28 siblings, offering no guidance on matching behavior or result handling.
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% and the single 'keyword' parameter is documented with two illustrative examples, so the description need not compensate. The description adds no format, casing, or matching-semantics detail beyond the schema's own example.
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?
Specific verb ('look up') and resource (a rule or game concept) tied to a named source, the 'TI4 Living Rules Reference'. It differentiates itself from the many get_<entity> siblings by returning prose rules rather than structured game data, though the phrase 'game concept' is broad enough to leave some ambiguity about scope.
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?
No statement of when to use this tool versus alternatives. The sibling 'search' tool plausibly overlaps, and nothing explains whether get_rules is for canonical rules text while search is for general queries, or what happens with partial or multi-word keywords.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.