Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

VGC Teambuilder

by com.pokemcp
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Get a Pokémon's common teammates

get_teammates
Read-onlyIdempotent

List the Pokémon that most often share a team with the given Pokémon in a regulation, as the share of its teams that include each one. Use it to find proven partners and cores.

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_teammates"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMaximum entries to return (1–30). Defaults to 10
formatNoRegulation id from list_formats. Defaults to "champions-regmc" (Pokémon Champions — Regulation M-C).
pokemonYesPokémon name in English. Mega Evolutions are tracked separately, e.g. "Charizard-Mega-Y"

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
formatYesRegulation id the result applies to
pokemonYes
teammatesYes
formatNameYesDisplay name of the regulation

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered. The description adds the useful semantic detail that results are a share of the Pokémon's teams rather than raw counts, but says nothing about ordering, truncation, or empty-result behavior beyond what the schema covers.

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?

Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what the tool returns and how the number is defined, the second gives the purpose. No filler, no restatement of the title.

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, return values need not be explained, and the description supplies the metric's meaning along with a pointer to the regulation scoping. The only gap is the absence of guidance on result ordering or what an empty/sparse teammate list implies, which is minor for a read-only lookup.

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 100%, with each parameter documented including the regulation enum and the Mega Evolution naming caveat. The description adds only the notion that results are scoped by regulation, which the schema's format parameter already conveys, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description names a specific verb and resource ('List the Pokémon that most often share a team with the given Pokémon') and defines the metric precisely ('as the share of its teams that include each one'). That distinguishes it from usage/stat siblings like get_pokemon_usage or get_checks_and_counters without the agent needing to open another schema.

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?

It offers a soft use case ('Use it to find proven partners and cores') that implies when the tool is appropriate. However, it names no alternatives and gives no exclusions or preconditions, so routing between this and similar usage/analysis tools is left to inference.

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

All VGC Teambuilder toolsInspect
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.

Resources