hill_status
Free. Who holds the crown, what it costs to take it right now, how much has been raised, and each holder's share of the board.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
king-of-the-hill
TDQS
A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the operation is free (cost-related behavior) and implicitly indicates a read-only status operation by listing informational fields. While it does not explicitly state 'no side effects', the status name and sibling context make the behavior clear enough.
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?
The description is one concise sentence with a short 'Free.' fragment, front-loading the key value proposition and specific data points. Every word contributes to understanding, with no redundancy or filler.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness5/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter status tool with no output schema, the description fully specifies all the information a caller would want: current holder, current cost, cumulative raised amount, and share distribution. It is complete and leaves no obvious gaps about what the tool returns.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters4/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to explain. The description does not need to add parameter details, and the empty schema confirms there are no inputs to document.
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 clearly identifies this as a status/read tool by enumerating the exact data returned: current crown holder, cost to take, total raised, and each holder's share. It distinguishes itself from the sibling hill_take by being free and informational, making the purpose unmistakable despite lacking a verb.
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 implies usage through 'Free' and the status nature, suggesting it is safe to call for current information. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this over hill_take or provide explicit alternatives, leaving the context partially implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Try in Browser
Glama MCP Gateway
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
TDQS
A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5
The two tools are perfectly distinct: hill_status is a read-only view of current game state, while hill_take is the only mutating action. There is zero ambiguity about which tool to use for a given purpose.
Naming Consistency5/5
Both tools follow the exact same convention: the prefix 'hill_' followed by a simple verb (status, take). This is a consistent and predictable verb_noun pattern, despite the noun being a suffix.
Tool Count4/5
At 2 tools, this is at the low end of the typical range, but the server's purpose is extremely narrow—managing a king-of-the-hill game. The two tools cover the entire user-facing surface, so the count feels appropriate rather than thin.
Completeness5/5
The toolset covers the complete lifecycle of the game: you can always check the current state (hill_status) and take the crown (hill_take). There are no missing operations like refunds or withdrawals because the game's design explicitly forbids them.