Read-only, anonymous MCP for the Eco game wiki: search, Markdown pages, and wiki_* lookups
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Average 4.5/5 across 10 of 10 tools scored. Lowest: 3.6/5.
Several tools have overlapping purposes: 'search' and 'wiki_search' are essentially duplicate full-text search tools, and 'fetch' vs 'wiki_get' both retrieve page content. Additionally, 'wiki_aggregate' vs 'wiki_rank' and 'wiki_bom' vs 'wiki_total_raw' have similar boundaries that require careful reading to distinguish.
The naming pattern is inconsistent: eight tools use the 'wiki_' prefix but two (fetch, search) do not. Even within prefixed tools, verb_noun names (wiki_get, wiki_search) mix with noun-heavy names (wiki_bom, wiki_total_raw) and descriptive phrases (wiki_contract_basics).
Ten tools is well-scoped for a wiki server. Each tool adds meaningful functionality, from basic search and retrieval to advanced aggregate, ranking, and crafting-tree calculations. No tool feels redundant in count.
The tool surface comprehensively covers wiki interactions: search, fetch, structured reads, aggregates, rankings, and specialized calculations for crafting, raw materials, and BOM. The only missing operations are write/update/delete, which are not expected for a read-only wiki server.
fetchAInspectFetch a single Eco wiki page as Markdown. Pass a canonical wiki path such as /wiki/item/iron-bar, /wiki, or an index like /wiki/recipes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | Canonical wiki path, e.g. /wiki/item/iron-bar |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the output is Markdown and gives valid path examples, but does not explicitly state that this is a read-only operation or describe error handling. Lacks deeper behavioral context, though the fetch action is inherently read-only.
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 sentence that front-loads the action and resource, with examples appended for clarity. Every word earns its place with zero redundancy.
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?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema), the description covers purpose, output format, and path formats sufficiently. It does not mention edge cases like non-existent pages, but for a basic fetch this is a minor gap.
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?
The schema already documents the 'path' parameter with an example. The description adds value by broadening the example set ('/wiki', '/wiki/item/iron-bar', '/wiki/recipes'), indicating that index pages are also valid. This goes beyond the schema's single 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?
The description uses a specific verb 'fetch' and identifies the resource 'single Eco wiki page' with output format 'Markdown'. The word 'single' implicitly differentiates it from aggregate siblings like wiki_aggregate or wiki_total_raw.
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?
Provides clear context for fetching a single page and implies when to use it, but does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusion criteria. Siblings like wiki_get and search are not referenced, leaving usage boundaries to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
searchAInspectFull-text search the Eco game wiki (items, recipes, skills, animals, plants, biomes, guides). Returns ranked matches with name, kind, canonical url and a snippet.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (1-50, default 15). | |
| query | Yes | The search query. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the burden for behavioral disclosure. It explains the output structure (ranked matches with name, kind, URL, snippet) but does not mention read-only status, rate limits, or error behavior, though the search semantics imply non-mutation.
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?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the action, includes specific content coverage, and describes the return payload without unnecessary words.
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 read-only search tool, the description is largely complete: it states what is searched, what is returned, and the schema covers parameters. With no output schema, the description's mention of return fields is valuable, but it lacks guidance on edge cases or relationship to sibling search tools.
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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters (query, limit) are well-described in the schema. The description adds context about search scope but no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline of 3 applies.
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?
The description clearly states the tool performs full-text search on the Eco game wiki, lists content categories, and describes the return format. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'wiki_search', so it lacks sibling distinction.
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?
The description implies the tool is used for searching the wiki but provides no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives like 'fetch' or 'wiki_search', and no exclusions or alternative recommendations.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wiki_aggregateAInspectCompute an aggregate over the wiki's entities — count / sum / avg / min / max of a numeric field across a whole kind, with an optional numeric 'where' filter. Use for 'how many…', 'what's the average/total/highest…' questions. 'count' needs no field (counts entities, or those matching 'where'); sum/avg/min/max require a 'field'. Supports the same optional 'category' scope as wiki_rank (food/item/species). Kinds and field names are the SAME as wiki_rank — see that tool's per-kind field lists. Example: { kind: "recipe", metric: "count", where: { field: "skill_level", op: ">", value: 5 } } → how many recipes need skill level above 5. Scoped: { kind: "food", metric: "avg", field: "calories", category: "vegetable" } → average calories of vegetables. Optional character/server PROFILE (skill_level/skills, talents, modules/module, server) recomputes the same profile-sensitive metrics as wiki_rank (recipe labor/craft_minutes; tool damage/calories_burn/durability_burn; item harvest_yield/power_watts; species yield_total/yield_min_total); static fields ignore it (the result carries a note). No profile = base aggregate.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| kind | Yes | Which entity set to aggregate over. | |
| field | No | Numeric field for sum/avg/min/max (required for those). Optional for count — with a field, count includes only entities that have it. | |
| where | No | Optional single numeric filter applied before ranking/aggregating, e.g. { field: "weight", op: "<", value: 1000 }. The field must come from the same per-kind set as 'by'/'field'. | |
| metric | Yes | Which aggregate to compute. | |
| module | No | A single module name/type, or a comma-separated list (alternative to modules[]). | |
| server | No | Model a DIFFERENT server's difficulty (default = this server's real settings; omit for accurate answers). Fields: craftResource, craftTime, growth, garbageRatio, fuelEfficiency, foodVariety, foodTastiness, baseGain, minBalanced, maxBalanced. Only craft_minutes is server-sensitive for ranking. | |
| skills | No | Per-skill levels: { "<skill FullName>": level }. Overrides skill_level for those skills. | |
| modules | No | Upgrade-module names/types installed (multiple slots stack). | |
| talents | No | Talent names/types to treat as learned (profile-sensitive metrics only). | |
| category | No | Optional: scope to ONE tag/category before ranking/aggregating, e.g. "seed", "vegetable", "gun". Only the tagged kinds (food / item / species) support this. Use the category's name from a wiki_search result; matching is case- and plural-insensitive. | |
| skill_level | No | A single skill level applied to every governing skill (profile-sensitive metrics only). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and acquits itself well. It explains count's dual behavior (counts entities or those matching 'where'; with a field, counts only entities that have it), profile-sensitive metrics versus static fields, the note on static-field results, the meaning of omitted profile (base aggregate), and the server sensitivity note—far beyond typical descriptions.
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?
The description is front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, followed by usage guidance, parameter semantics, and examples. It is long but each sentence contributes necessary detail for a complex tool with profile sensitivity and multiple metrics. Minor redundancy in repeating 'profile-sensitive metrics' could be trimmed, but overall it is well-structured and not wasteful.
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?
The description covers a large parameter space (11 params), nested objects, profile sensitivity, category scoping, and cross-references. However, there is no output schema and the description does not explicitly state the exact return structure (e.g., a plain number vs. object with note). The examples imply the returned aggregate value, and static-field note behavior is mentioned, but a slightly more explicit return-format statement would make it fully complete.
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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds substantial clarity beyond the schema: it explains that count requires no field and what the field means for count, that sum/avg/min/max require a field, and that kinds/field names are identical to wiki_rank (saving the agent from re-learning field lists). The worked examples further clarify parameter combination semantics.
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?
The description opens with 'Compute an aggregate over the wiki's entities' and enumerates the metrics (count/sum/avg/min/max) plus the resource (entities of a kind). It immediately differentiates from sibling wiki_rank by focusing on aggregates and references the same field lists, making the tool's role unambiguous.
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?
The description explicitly states 'Use for "how many…", "what's the average/total/highest…" questions' and provides concrete examples for both unfiltered and category-scoped usage. It does not explicitly state 'do not use for ranked lists' but the strong cross-reference to wiki_rank ('Kinds and field names are the SAME as wiki_rank') implies that ranking is handled elsewhere.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wiki_bomAInspectBill-of-materials for making a target item/recipe: the full crafting tree INCLUDING the crafted intermediate sub-components (NOT just raw leaves). This is the tool for 'how many does it take to make ' — including components the target never lists directly (they're summed transitively across the whole tree). Differs from wiki_total_raw (raw materials only) and wiki_calc (exact one-step numbers for a single recipe). Pass an item slug (uses its primary producing recipe) OR a recipe slug. Optional: quantity (units of the target, default 1, 1..10000); ingredient (a specific component name/slug — returns just that component's total quantity + whether it's an intermediate or raw); recipe_slug (override which producing recipe to use when the item has several — the others are listed as 'alternatives'). Optional character/server setup to recompute the whole tree: skill_level/skills, talents, modules/module, and server (model a different server's difficulty). Example: { slug:"steam-tractor", ingredient:"iron bar" } → how many iron bars a steam tractor needs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | The TARGET item or recipe slug (from a wiki_search result). | |
| module | No | A single module name/type, or a comma-separated list (alternative to modules[]). | |
| server | No | Model a DIFFERENT server by overriding its difficulty/feature settings (default = THIS server's real settings, so omit for accurate answers). Fields: craftResource (× ingredient cost), craftTime (× craft time), growth (× plant growth/maturity), garbageRatio (Update 14 craft-waste ratio, 0..1; scales recipe garbage byproducts), fuelEfficiency (× every fuel item's fuel value), foodVariety (bool), foodTastiness (bool), baseGain (flat XP/day floor), minBalanced/maxBalanced (balanced-diet multiplier range for food XP). | |
| skills | No | Per-skill levels: { "<skill FullName>": level }. Overrides skill_level for those skills. | |
| modules | No | Upgrade-module names/types installed (multiple slots stack). | |
| talents | No | Talent names/types to treat as learned (applied across the whole chain). Their effect text is echoed back so you can explain why a number changed. | |
| quantity | No | How many units of the target to produce (default 1; clamped 1..10000). | |
| ingredient | No | Optional: a specific component name or slug. Returns just that component's total quantity in the tree and its role (intermediate/raw). | |
| recipe_slug | No | Optional: when the target item has multiple producing recipes, pick this one (else the primary; others are reported as alternatives). | |
| skill_level | No | A single skill level applied to EVERY governing skill in the chain (shortcut for a uniform setup). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It thoroughly explains transitive summing, ingredient filtering, recipe alternatives, item-vs-recipe slug handling, skill/talent/server overrides, and echoed effect text. This goes far beyond a simple 'returns a BOM' statement.
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?
The description is dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and example. While it is a single long paragraph, it is well-structured and every sentence contributes necessary detail for a 10-parameter tool. Slightly more formatting (e.g., bullets) could improve scannability, but it remains highly functional.
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?
The tool is complex (10 params, nested server object, no output schema), and the description explains what the tool returns: total quantities, intermediate/raw status, alternatives, and echoed effect text. It does not describe the full response shape, but given the rich parameter documentation, it is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing a concrete example ('steam-tractor', 'iron bar'), clarifying that slug can be an item or recipe, explaining that recipe_slug overrides the primary producing recipe, and noting that skill_level is a uniform shortcut. This meaningfully augments the schema.
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?
The description clearly defines the tool as a full crafting-tree bill-of-materials generator, using a specific verb ('Bill-of-materials') and resource ('target item/recipe'). It explicitly differentiates from wiki_total_raw and wiki_calc by stating it includes intermediate sub-components and transitive sums, not just raw leaves.
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?
The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'This is the tool for how many <component> does it take to make <target>'. It also names alternatives and explains the difference, e.g., 'Differs from wiki_total_raw (raw materials only) and wiki_calc (exact one-step numbers for a single recipe)'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wiki_calcAInspectCompute EXACT numbers for a chosen setup. For a RECIPE: labor calories, craft time, per-ingredient counts and throughput at a given skill level + upgrade module + talents. For a FOOD item: its STATIC calories/nutrition (eating never changes these) PLUS an estimated XP / skill-gain rate from the diet inputs (balanced/variety/tastiness/housing). For a TOOL/WEAPON: damage, calories-per-use, durability-per-use at the tool's governing-skill level + talents. For a MINEABLE BLOCK: per-block calorie/durability cost (for a representative pickaxe), yield, and calories-per-stack at a mining-skill level + talents. For a SPECIES: harvest yields recomputed with the reader's harvest-yield talents. Omit a lever to leave it at base; the response lists the available modules/talents/skill (with each talent's effect text) so you can pick valid ones and explain what changed. Optional 'server' override models a different server's difficulty (recipes honor craftResource/craftTime; mining/species honor their relevant settings; food honors foodVariety/foodTastiness).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | A recipe, food-item, or species slug (from wiki_search). | |
| module | No | Upgrade-module name or tier number (recipes only); lowers craft time/materials. | |
| server | No | Model a DIFFERENT server by overriding its difficulty/feature settings (default = THIS server's real settings, so omit for accurate answers). Fields: craftResource (× ingredient cost), craftTime (× craft time), growth (× plant growth/maturity), garbageRatio (Update 14 craft-waste ratio, 0..1; scales recipe garbage byproducts), fuelEfficiency (× every fuel item's fuel value), foodVariety (bool), foodTastiness (bool), baseGain (flat XP/day floor), minBalanced/maxBalanced (balanced-diet multiplier range for food XP). | |
| housing | No | Food only: your housing XP contribution (additive to the skill-gain rate; default 0). | |
| talents | No | Talent names to treat as learned (recipes/tools/mining/species yields). | |
| variety | No | Food only: your current food-variety bonus multiplier (default 1). | |
| balanced | No | Food only: assume a balanced diet (max balanced-diet bonus) vs this food alone. | |
| tastiness | No | Food only: your current food-tastiness bonus multiplier (default 1). | |
| skill_level | No | Governing-skill level (recipes/tools/mining); lowers labor / tunes stats. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully carries the burden and excels: it discloses computation scope per item type, clarifies that food stats are static, and explains that the response lists available modules/talents/skill. It also details server override behavior, providing rich context beyond the schema.
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?
The description is lengthy but necessarily so, covering multiple item types. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized by item type with clear sections. There is no fluff, though the density could be slightly reduced with tighter formatting.
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?
Despite lacking an output schema, the description explains what the response includes (available modules/talents/skill with effect text) and covers all item categories and parameter roles. It stops short of a sample return, but for a complex calculator it is quite complete.
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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by explaining how parameter groups apply (skill_level+module+talents for recipes, housing/variety/balanced/tastiness for food, server overrides for specific settings) and notes that omitting a lever leaves it at base, which goes beyond the schema.
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?
The description states a specific verb ('Compute EXACT numbers') and identifies the exact resource types (recipes, food, tools, blocks, species), clearly distinguishing it from search/aggregate sibling tools. It leaves no ambiguity about what the tool does.
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?
It provides clear context for when to use the tool—whenever exact calculated numbers are needed for the enumerated item categories. It does not explicitly name alternatives like wiki_get or wiki_total_raw, but the exhaustive categorization implicitly guides appropriate use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wiki_contract_basicsAInspectExplain how Solomon's help contracts and quests work for players (the kinds available, how rewards/escrow work, how completion is verified). Use for 'how do contracts/quests work' questions.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. The verb 'Explain' implies a read-only, informational operation, but the description does not explicitly state that it has no side effects or require any permissions. Since the tool is purely explanatory, this is a minor gap, but more explicit transparency would improve the score.
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?
The description is two sentences, with the first sentence front-loading the tool's purpose and the second providing usage guidance. Every word earns its place; it is concise without unnecessary detail.
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 simple explanatory tool with no parameters and no output schema, the description sufficiently covers the topics (kinds available, rewards/escrow, completion verification) and usage context. It could add a note about the format of the explanation or limitations, but it is largely complete for the tool's simplicity.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. With no parameters, the baseline for this dimension is 4, and the description does not need to add parameter semantics since none exist.
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?
The description uses a specific verb ('Explain') and identifies a clear resource ('Solomon's help contracts and quests'), with details on the topics covered. It is distinct from sibling tools like wiki_get or wiki_search which likely retrieve specific data, while this tool provides conceptual explanations.
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?
The description explicitly states when to use the tool: 'Use for 'how do contracts/quests work' questions.' This provides clear context, though it does not mention alternatives or exclusions. It's adequate for guiding selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wiki_getAInspectRead full facts for one OR MANY wiki pages in a single call. Pass every page you need at once (e.g. a recipe AND its ingredient items) — batching saves round-trips. Each entry takes a slug (from wiki_search) and, ideally, its kind: • item — item/food/tool/placed-object/block: description, category, tags, weight/stack, fuel, food nutrition + shelf life, tool/weapon stats, placed-object stats (housing, rooms, power/fuel, storage), block facts, where obtained, recipes that make/use it. • recipe — products (+waste), ingredients (specific items OR categories w/ examples), station, skill + level, labor, craft time, XP, throughput, and the levers that change the numbers. (wiki_calc for exact modified numbers; wiki_total_raw for the from-scratch chain.) • skill — tier, max level, prerequisites, recipes unlocked. • category — a tag's member items and the recipes that use it. • species — an animal OR plant/tree: description, yields; animals: diet/predator/nocturnal; plants: biomes, ideal temperature. • biome — the plants/trees that grow there. Omit kind only if unsure; an ambiguous slug returns all matches so you can re-request with the right kind.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| items | Yes | 1–12 pages to read in one call. |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the transparency burden and meets it by explaining batching, ambiguous-slug fallback to all matches, and per-kind fact scope. It discloses the non-calculating nature by deferring exact numbers to wiki_calc.
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?
The first two sentences front-load the core behavior and batching advice; the bulleted kind list is dense but well-organized. No filler — every line adds useful detail for an otherwise complex tool.
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?
Despite no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the tool's full behavioral surface: input expectations, kind-specific return contents, batch behavior, fallback on ambiguity, and pointers to sibling tools for derived values.
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?
Though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaning by explaining each kind's content, the slug's provenance from wiki_search, and when to omit kind. This goes well beyond the schema's terse field descriptions.
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?
Description opens with 'Read full facts for one OR MANY wiki pages in a single call' — a specific verb, resource, and batching scope. It clearly distinguishes from search and calculation siblings by focusing on stored page facts.
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?
Explicitly advises passing all needed pages at once to save round-trips, suggests using wiki_search for slugs, and points to wiki_calc / wiki_total_raw for computed values. The kind-selection guidance plus fallback behavior ('Omit kind only if unsure') gives clear when-to-use direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wiki_rankAInspectRank the wiki's entities by a NUMERIC field and return the top (or bottom) N. Use this for ANY 'which has the most/least/highest/lowest X' question — never guess-and-confirm with wiki_search. Choose a kind, the field to rank 'by', order (desc = highest first, the default; asc = lowest first), an optional limit (default 5, max 25), an optional 'category' to scope to one tag (food/item/species only — e.g. category "seed"), and an optional numeric 'where' filter. Available fields by kind (a field that doesn't apply to a given entity — e.g. a tool stat on a non-tool — simply excludes it): • food: calories, carbs, fat, protein, shelf_life, stack, vitamins, weight • item (base + placed-object + tool + block facets): air_pollution, animal_damage, block_tier, calories_burn, damage, durability_burn, fertility, fuel, fuel_jps, grid_radius, hardness, harvest_yield, housing_value, is_fuel, is_mintable, is_road, is_weapon, labor_max, labor_min, max_coins, max_durability, move_efficiency, pollution, power_generated, power_watts, repair_level, room_tier, room_volume, school_value, seats, size_x, size_y, size_z, stack, storage_slots, storage_weight, tool_tier, vehicle_speed, weight • recipe: craft_minutes, crafting_steps, ingredients, labor, products, skill_level, skill_max_level, xp • skill: max_level, tier • species (animals ∪ plants/trees): attacks_player, calorie_value, co2_per_day, health, ideal_temp_max, ideal_temp_min, is_predator, nocturnal, yield_min_total, yield_total Bool fields read as 1/0 (e.g. where { field: "is_predator", op: "=", value: 1 }). Example: { kind: "food", by: "calories", order: "desc", limit: 3 } → the 3 highest-calorie foods. Scoped example: { kind: "food", by: "shelf_life", order: "asc", category: "seed" } → the seeds that spoil fastest. Optional character/server PROFILE (skill_level/skills, talents, modules/module, server) re-ranks the profile-sensitive metrics — recipe labor/craft_minutes; tool damage/calories_burn/durability_burn; item harvest_yield/power_watts; species yield_total/yield_min_total (craft_minutes also honors server craftTime). All other fields are static facts and ignore the profile (the result carries a note). No profile = base ranking.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| by | Yes | Numeric field to rank by (see this tool's description for the field names valid for each kind). | |
| kind | Yes | Which entity set to rank. | |
| limit | No | How many to return (default 5, max 25). | |
| order | No | desc = highest first (default), asc = lowest first. | |
| where | No | Optional single numeric filter applied before ranking/aggregating, e.g. { field: "weight", op: "<", value: 1000 }. The field must come from the same per-kind set as 'by'/'field'. | |
| module | No | A single module name/type, or a comma-separated list (alternative to modules[]). | |
| server | No | Model a DIFFERENT server's difficulty (default = this server's real settings; omit for accurate answers). Fields: craftResource, craftTime, growth, garbageRatio, fuelEfficiency, foodVariety, foodTastiness, baseGain, minBalanced, maxBalanced. Only craft_minutes is server-sensitive for ranking. | |
| skills | No | Per-skill levels: { "<skill FullName>": level }. Overrides skill_level for those skills. | |
| modules | No | Upgrade-module names/types installed (multiple slots stack). | |
| talents | No | Talent names/types to treat as learned (profile-sensitive metrics only). | |
| category | No | Optional: scope to ONE tag/category before ranking/aggregating, e.g. "seed", "vegetable", "gun". Only the tagged kinds (food / item / species) support this. Use the category's name from a wiki_search result; matching is case- and plural-insensitive. | |
| skill_level | No | A single skill level applied to every governing skill (profile-sensitive metrics only). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description fully discloses behavioral traits: default order and limit, max limit, category scoping behavior, boolean field handling, profile sensitivity (which metrics are re-ranked and which are static facts), and the note carried on results. This goes well beyond a simple 'rank' description.
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?
The description is dense but organized with clear sections (field lists, examples, profile behavior). Every sentence carries necessary information—no fluff. The opening sentence front-loads the core purpose, and the bulleted field lists make long content scannable.
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?
This is a complex tool with 12 parameters and nested objects; the description covers all essential aspects: field selection, filtering, limits, category scoping, profile overrides, and edge cases (non-applicable fields, boolean encoding). No output schema exists, but the return behavior is sufficiently implied by the ranking description and examples.
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?
Though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial meaning beyond schema field names: it enumerates valid fields per kind, provides a 'where' filter example, explains category matching (case/plural-insensitive), and specifies how bool fields are read as 1/0. This significantly enhances parameter understanding.
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?
The description opens with a specific verb+resource+outcome: 'Rank the wiki's entities by a NUMERIC field and return the top (or bottom) N.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by instructing to never use wiki_search for these ranking questions, and the field lists by kind further disambiguate its 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?
It explicitly states the intended use case: 'Use this for ANY "which has the most/least/highest/lowest X" question' and contrasts with wiki_search ('never guess-and-confirm'). It also gives concrete examples (e.g., 'the 3 highest-calorie foods') and a scoped example, making when-to-use unmistakable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wiki_searchAInspectFull-text search the Eco game wiki (items, recipes, skills, categories, animals, plants, biomes). Returns matching pages with their kind, name, slug, and a snippet. Use the slug with the matching wiki_get_* tool to read full facts. ALWAYS search first to find the right slugs.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Max results (default 8). | |
| query | Yes | What to search for (e.g. "iron bar", "carpentry", "deer"). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the return format (kind, name, slug, snippet) and the tool's role as a precursor to wiki_get_*, which is useful behavior. It does not mention rate limits or edge cases, but for a read-only search tool this is sufficient.
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?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the main purpose in the first sentence, and provides only essential instructions in the second. No filler.
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?
The description fully covers the tool's purpose, scope, return payload, and relationship to sibling tools. Given the simple parameter set and lack of output schema, it is complete.
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?
The input schema already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (query and limit), so the baseline is 3. The description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema offers.
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?
The description clearly states the action ('Full-text search') and the resource ('the Eco game wiki') along with the content types covered. It distinguishes itself from sibling wiki_get by explicitly directing users to use the returned slug with wiki_get_* for full facts.
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?
The description provides explicit usage guidance: 'ALWAYS search first to find the right slugs' and points to the follow-up tool (wiki_get_*) for reading full facts. This establishes a clear workflow and when to use the tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
wiki_total_rawAInspectFlatten a recipe or craftable item to its TOTAL RAW materials across the whole production chain, with total labor calories, total craft minutes, and crafting-step count. Pass an item slug OR a recipe slug. Use for 'what does it take to make X from scratch' (the raw shopping list). For a breakdown that ALSO includes the crafted intermediate sub-components (e.g. how many iron bars), use wiki_bom instead. Optionally pass a character setup (skill_level/skills, talents, modules) AND/OR a server override to recompute the WHOLE chain for that profile.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes | An item or recipe slug (from a wiki_search result). | |
| module | No | A single module name/type, or a comma-separated list (alternative to modules[]). | |
| server | No | Model a DIFFERENT server by overriding its difficulty/feature settings (default = THIS server's real settings, so omit for accurate answers). Fields: craftResource (× ingredient cost), craftTime (× craft time), growth (× plant growth/maturity), garbageRatio (Update 14 craft-waste ratio, 0..1; scales recipe garbage byproducts), fuelEfficiency (× every fuel item's fuel value), foodVariety (bool), foodTastiness (bool), baseGain (flat XP/day floor), minBalanced/maxBalanced (balanced-diet multiplier range for food XP). | |
| skills | No | Per-skill levels: { "<skill FullName>": level }. Overrides skill_level for those skills. | |
| modules | No | Upgrade-module names/types installed (multiple slots stack). | |
| talents | No | Talent names/types to treat as learned (applied across the whole chain). | |
| skill_level | No | A single skill level applied to EVERY governing skill in the chain (shortcut for a uniform setup). |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently explains that the tool computes the entire production chain, accepts item or recipe slugs, and that optional character/server overrides recompute the whole chain for that profile. While it doesn't explicitly state read-only behavior or error handling, the mutation-free nature is implied and the optional parameter effects are clearly described.
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?
The description is a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the primary function, then usage, an alternative, and optional parameter behavior. Every sentence contributes meaningful information; there is no repetition or filler. It is slightly long but appropriately detailed for a tool with seven parameters.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, the alternative, and how optional parameters change behavior. It names the output dimensions (raw materials, labor calories, craft minutes, step count) in the first sentence, partially compensating for the lack of an output schema. Minor gaps like error handling or return format remain, but the description is largely complete.
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?
The input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds value by clarifying that the slug can be an item or recipe slug, grouping the character setup parameters (skill_level/skills, talents, modules), and explaining that passing these or a server override recomputes the entire chain. This exceeds baseline by providing semantic context not fully apparent in the schema alone.
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?
The description clearly states the tool flattens a recipe/craftable item into total raw materials across the production chain, with total labor calories, craft minutes, and crafting-step count. It uses a specific verb 'Flatten' plus a well-specified resource and scope, and explicitly distinguishes itself from wiki_bom by directing users there for intermediate sub-component breakdowns.
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?
The description explicitly says 'Use for what does it take to make X from scratch' and names the alternative tool (wiki_bom) for cases where crafted intermediates are needed. It also explains when to use the optional character/server overrides, providing clear context for selecting this tool over siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
