locationClash Royale official API — details for a single location by numeric ID: name, country code, and whether it is a country or a global region.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | No | Location ID | |
| name | No | Location name | |
| isCountry | No | Is a country |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Input schema / examplesAdded value: +[
+ {
+ "id": 57000
+ }
+]Output schema / (root)Previous value: -nullNew value: +{
+ "properties": {
+ "id": {
+ "description": "Location ID",
+ "type": "number"
+ },
+ "isCountry": {
+ "description": "Is a country",
+ "type": "boolean"
+ },
+ "name": {
+ "description": "Location name",
+ "type": "string"
+ }
+ },
+ "type": "object"
+}Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds only context about the data returned (name, country code, region type), but no extra behavioral disclosures such as authentication requirements or rate limits.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes: source (Clash Royale API), scope (single location), input (numeric ID), and output fields are all included.
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 one-parameter lookup with a full output schema and safety annotations, the description is sufficient. It specifies the resource, input, and return fields, leaving no major gaps for an agent to invoke the tool 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?
With schema description coverage at 0%, the description compensates by explaining that the 'id' parameter is a numeric location ID. It adds meaning beyond the raw schema ('id' as number) by linking it to 'single location'.
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 returns details for a single location by numeric ID, naming the specific fields (name, country code, country/global region). This distinguishes it from sibling tool 'locations' (plural) by emphasizing 'single location'.
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 usage for single-location lookups via 'single location' and 'numeric ID', but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives like 'locations'. No when-not or alternative tool is mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.