Medhā MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Venice Character Chat

venice_chat_with_character

Generate a concise meta description for the venice_chat_with_character tool from the Medhā MCP server, following all the given constraints.

Instructions

Chat with a Venice character by slug. Note: the character lookup itself is API-key-only, but the chat completion supports x402 — so x402 users may need to fetch character info via API key first. Operator preferences — default: venice-uncensored-role-play; also try: venice-uncensored-1-2. Use character_slug from list_characters. Uncensored: NSFW prompts allowed where the model permits.

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": {
      "character_slug": "<character_slug>",
      "messages": "<messages>"
    },
    "name": "venice_chat_with_character"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`model`	No
`messages`	Yes
`max_tokens`	No
`temperature`	No
`character_slug`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.0-medhaAug 4, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the key behavioral nuance (API-key vs x402 distinction), operator model preferences, and the NSFW/uncensored nature of the tool. This is meaningful context beyond what the schema exposes.

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?

Three compact sentences, all information-bearing, no fluff. Front-loads the core purpose. Slightly dense toward the end with the operator-preference list, but acceptable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a chat-completion tool with self-explanatory parameters and no output schema, the description covers purpose, inputs, auth nuance, and model defaults well. It doesn't describe return format, but given the tool type that's a minor gap.

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

Parameters3/5

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. It does clarify character_slug usage and gives model guidance, but leaves max_tokens, temperature, and messages semantics entirely to the schema. The schema itself is fairly self-explanatory for these, so partial credit is warranted.

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 clearly states the verb+resource: 'Chat with a Venice character by slug.' It references character_slug from list_characters, anchoring the primary input. However, it doesn't strongly differentiate from sibling venice_chat, which is a close analog for general chat completions.

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?

The description provides practical context: it notes the character lookup is API-key-only while chat supports x402, and recommends model preferences (default and alternative). However, it doesn't explicitly state when to choose this tool over venice_chat or venice_responses, or provide exclusions.

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