Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Praetorium

by io.github.richardsolomou
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Estimate combat between two units

simulate_combat
Read-onlyIdempotent

Runs Praetorium's exact combat simulator for one attacking unit, with any attached leaders, against one defending unit at full strength: shooting, melee, and shooting followed by melee. Returns expected models destroyed, expected wounds lost, the chance to destroy the unit, cumulative odds, weapons used, the rule and weapon-mode choices each side can change, datasheet citations, and a simulator link. Passive datasheet rules apply by default; stratagems and conditional rules stay off until chosen. Rules the simulator cannot calculate are never approximated: a phase it cannot estimate has status refused with its reasons, and recognised rules it leaves out are listed under notCalculated, so explain those gaps rather than retrying. Errors are reserved for unknown factions or units, illegal unit sizes or attachments, and unavailable reference data. It uses default loadouts, and a side fields a detachment's rules and offers its stratagems only when its detachment is named; unit sizes and attachments must be legal.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
attackerYes
defenderYes
modifiersNoSituational modifiers the simulator page offers, such as { "all": { "cover": true, "hitModifier": -1 } }, { "melee": { "charged": true } }, or { "target": { "invulnerable": 4 } }. commandReroll spends one Command Re-roll per phase on the first failed hit, wound, or save roll, or the first single-die Attacks roll below its average; compare with a run without it to judge the CP.
weaponModesNoWeapon mode choices by key from a previous result, such as a frag or krak profile.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / modifiers / properties / all / properties / singleRerolls
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "enum": [
+      "hit",
+      "wound"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 4,
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / modifiers / properties / melee / properties / singleRerolls
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "enum": [
+      "hit",
+      "wound"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 4,
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / modifiers / properties / ranged / properties / singleRerolls
      Added value: +{
+  "items": {
+    "enum": [
+      "hit",
+      "wound"
+    ],
+    "type": "string"
+  },
+  "maxItems": 4,
+  "type": "array"
+}
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / modifiers / description
      Previous value: -"Situational modifiers the simulator page offers, such as { \"all\": { \"cover\": true, \"hitModifier\": -1 } }, { \"melee\": { \"charged\": true } }, or { \"target\": { \"invulnerable\": 4 } }."New value: +"Situational modifiers the simulator page offers, such as { \"all\": { \"cover\": true, \"hitModifier\": -1 } }, { \"melee\": { \"charged\": true } }, or { \"target\": { \"invulnerable\": 4 } }. commandReroll spends one Command Re-roll per phase on the first failed hit, wound, or save roll, or the first single-die Attacks roll below its average; compare with a run without it to judge the CP."
    • addedInput schema / properties / modifiers / properties / all / properties / commandReroll
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "attacks",
+    "hit",
+    "wound",
+    "save",
+    "damage"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / modifiers / properties / melee / properties / commandReroll
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "attacks",
+    "hit",
+    "wound",
+    "save",
+    "damage"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / modifiers / properties / ranged / properties / commandReroll
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "attacks",
+    "hit",
+    "wound",
+    "save",
+    "damage"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  3. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / attacker / properties / detachment
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Detachment id, slug, or name from list_units, to field its rules and offer its stratagems; omit it for none.",
+  "maxLength": 160,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / defender / properties / detachment
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Detachment id, slug, or name from list_units, to field its rules and offer its stratagems; omit it for none.",
+  "maxLength": 160,
+  "minLength": 1,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / attacker / properties / attached / description
      Previous value: -"Leaders or support units joined to the unit, from its canBeLedBy and canBeSupportedBy."New value: +"Leaders or support units joined to the unit, from its canBeLedBy and canBeSupportedBy. A unit that joins one of these instead, such as Nork Deddog joining a Cadian Command Squad, goes after it."
    • changedInput schema / properties / defender / properties / attached / description
      Previous value: -"Leaders or support units joined to the unit, from its canBeLedBy and canBeSupportedBy."New value: +"Leaders or support units joined to the unit, from its canBeLedBy and canBeSupportedBy. A unit that joins one of these instead, such as Nork Deddog joining a Cadian Command Squad, goes after it."
  5. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: default datasheet rules, refusal statuses for unestimated phases, notCalculated omissions, reserved error categories, default loadouts, and detachment-gated stratagems. These details materially affect how an agent should interpret results and decide whether to retry.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but mostly front-loaded: purpose and return list come first, followed by behavioral constraints and error semantics. Some attachment and rule-default points are repeated across sentences, so it is not maximally tight, but the density is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 complex nested simulation with no output schema, the description lists the return values — expected models destroyed, expected wounds lost, destruction chance, cumulative odds, weapons used, rule and weapon-mode choices, datasheet citations, and a simulator link. It also covers refusal/notCalculated behavior and error boundaries, making it complete enough for an agent to interpret results and avoid inappropriate retries.

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?

The schema supplies many field descriptions, including rules mapping and examples for the modifiers object, and the description adds meaning for attached leaders, default loadouts, detachment designation, and legal unit sizes/attachments. However, with 50% schema coverage, it does not explain the large modifiers object or weaponModes beyond what the structured fields already provide.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource — 'Runs Praetorium's exact combat simulator' — and confines it to one attacking unit plus attachments versus one defending unit at full strength across shooting, melee, and combined phases. That scope is distinct from the sibling battle-management tools, even though those siblings are not named explicitly.

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?

It gives operational guidance: passive rules on by default, stratagems and conditional rules off until chosen, detachment rules only when a detachment is named, and legal unit sizes/attachments required. It also says refusal/notCalculated gaps should be explained rather than retried. However, it does not explicitly state when to choose this tool over create_battle or other siblings, so usage is implied rather than fully routed.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Praetorium toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources