Skip to main content
Glama

maneuvers

Maneuvers event boards

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": {
      "region": "<region>"
    },
    "name": "maneuvers"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoRows per board, 1-1000 (default 100).
regionYesGame server region.
editionNoThe edition to read, by its identifier (an `eventName` from `editions`). Defaults to the newest edition recorded.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / edition
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "The edition to read, by its identifier (an `eventName` from `editions`). Defaults to the newest edition recorded.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
  2. Added

TDQS

D1.7/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden and delivers nothing: no read/write indication, no explanation of default-edition behavior, no note on pagination or cost of the limit parameter. The only behavioral hints come from the schema field descriptions, not the tool description.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

Three words is technically concise, but this is under-specification rather than economy of language. Nothing is front-loaded because there is nothing to front-load.

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

Completeness1/5

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

For a three-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description supplies zero orientation: what a board contains, what the edition default means in practice, and how the result relates to maneuvers_history are all unstated.

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 region enum, limit range, and edition identifier all documented in the schema itself. The description adds no meaning beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

"Maneuvers event boards" essentially restates the tool name with a noun phrase; it never says whether this lists, creates, or replays maneuvers, nor what an "event board" is. It also gives no hint of how it differs from the sibling maneuvers_history.

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

Usage Guidelines1/5

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

There is no when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or prerequisite information at all. An agent cannot tell from this text whether maneuvers or maneuvers_history is the right call for a given request.

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.