VGC Teambuilder

Get a Pokémon's checks and counters

get_checks_and_counters

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the Pokémon that most reliably beat the given Pokémon on the ladder, ranked by Smogon's checks-and-counters score. The data records one-on-one outcomes (a knockout or a forced switch), so in doubles treat it as a rough signal. Pokémon with few recorded matchups have no data.

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": {
      "pokemon": "<pokemon>"
    },
    "name": "get_checks_and_counters"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`limit`	No	Maximum entries to return (1–30). Defaults to 10
`format`	No	Regulation id from list_formats. Defaults to "champions-regmc" (Pokémon Champions — Regulation M-C).
`pokemon`	Yes	Pokémon name in English. Mega Evolutions are tracked separately, e.g. "Charizard-Mega-Y"

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`checks`	Yes
`format`	Yes	Regulation id the result applies to
`pokemon`	Yes
`formatName`	Yes	Display name of the regulation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedNov 13, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world behavior, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond that: the underlying signal is knockout-or-forced-switch outcomes, it degrades in doubles, and low-sample Pokémon yield no data — all things an agent cannot learn from the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three sentences, front-loaded with what the tool returns and how it is ranked, then two compact caveats. Nothing is redundant and no sentence could be removed without losing information.

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?

With an output schema present and full parameter documentation, the description only needs to supply interpretive context, which it does (ranking metric, doubles caveat, empty-result condition). The only gap is that it does not indicate whether results are format-scoped or how the score should be read numerically, but that is minor given the structured fields.

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 coverage is 100%, with all three parameters described including enum values and the default regulation. The description adds only the notion of 'the given Pokémon' and that results are ranked, which the schema and output schema already imply, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 gives a specific verb and resource: 'List the Pokémon that most reliably beat the given Pokémon on the ladder,' plus the ranking basis (Smogon checks-and-counters score). That is far more precise than the name alone, though it never names a sibling (e.g. get_teammates or get_meta_shifts) to draw the contrast explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It gives real usage context: the data is one-on-one outcome based, so 'in doubles treat it as a rough signal,' and Pokémon with few recorded matchups return nothing. It stops short of stating when to prefer this tool over sibling analysis tools, so no explicit alternative routing is provided.

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

All VGC Teambuilder tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.