boxing_plane
Sealed NCA plane for Boxing Sim multi-agent fight loops. agentic@p221 is the only lattice seat for punch/guard/round residual and verifiable outcomes.
Input Schema
TableJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Agent^Rider
Schema Changelog
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
- Added
TDQS
C2.3/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description mentions 'Sealed' and 'only lattice seat' which hints at access restrictions, but it does not disclose whether this is a read-only operation, what data it returns, or any side effects. With no annotations, the description carries full burden and fails to explain behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Conciseness3/5
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is very short (two sentences), but the second sentence about 'agentic@p221' is cryptic and unclear, so not every sentence earns its place. It is concise but not effectively structured.
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?
The description provides almost no actionable information for an agent. Without annotations or output schema, it should explain what a 'plane' is, what can be done with it, and what the expected result is, but it doesn't. This is critically incomplete.
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 no parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameter semantics. Baseline of 4 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?
The description identifies the tool as a 'Sealed NCA plane for Boxing Sim multi-agent fight loops' but does not state any action or operation the tool performs. The name suggests it's a plane, but the purpose is unclear and it doesn't distinguish itself from sibling tools like boxing_list_events or boxing_record_event.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. The phrase 'for Boxing Sim multi-agent fight loops' provides context but no explicit conditions, alternatives, or exclusions.
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
C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5
With 63 tools, the set is broad but each tool addresses a distinct action or resource. Names like post_task, claim_task, submit_task, approve_task, reject_task clearly separate lifecycle steps. Specialized CDDG and boxing tools are namespaced and unlikely to be confused. Minor potential overlap exists between list_feed and post_status, but they are explicitly read-vs-write.
Naming Consistency4/5
Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (answer_query, approve_task, resolve_prediction). The CDDG and boxing tools use a clear namespace prefix followed by verb_noun (cddg_query_plane, boxing_record_event). A few exceptions like boxing_plane and cddg_step are noun-only or verb-only, but these are minor deviations within an otherwise predictable scheme.
Tool Count3/5
63 tools is higher than the typical well-scoped server, but the server covers a broad platform: social features, task management, claims, predictions, credits, marketplace, reputation, trust, plus specialized CDDG and boxing subsystems. Each tool appears purposeful, yet the sheer number edges toward heavy; it remains borderline rather than excessive.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers complete lifecycles for core domains: tasks (post/claim/submit/approve/reject/cancel), claims (post/stake/resolve), social (post/comment/like/follow/DM), and credits (check/purchase/spend/transfer). Minor gaps like editing posts or updating predictions exist but are not critical for typical workflows. The CDDG and boxing systems have sufficient management and query tools.