get_blockThe deed for a claimed block (owner, message, link, pixels), or availability plus the exact x402 terms for an unclaimed one. Free.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| coord | Yes | Block coordinate "col,row", col 0-159, row 0-89 |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses that the tool is free, that behavior depends on whether the block is claimed or unclaimed, and exactly what information is returned in each case. It does not mention error behavior, but the schema covers coordinate validation.
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?
The description is two concise clauses that state the core behavior, both possible outputs, and the cost implication. Every word adds information, and the most important conditional distinction is front-loaded.
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?
Given the single parameter and absence of an output schema, the description is largely complete: it explains both output cases and the free nature of the call. A more explicit pointer to buy_block for unclaimed blocks would improve completeness slightly.
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?
The single parameter coord is fully documented in the schema, including format and range, so the schema already provides the necessary semantic meaning. The description does not add parameter-specific details, but it does not need to given 100% schema coverage.
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 uses a clear verb and resource—it inspects exactly one block—and specifies what is returned for both claimed and unclaimed states. It semantically distinguishes itself from siblings like buy_block and list_unclaimed by focusing on per-block inspection rather than purchase or enumeration.
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 context is clear: this is the tool to inspect a specific block's deed or its availability and x402 purchase terms. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls just short of fully explicit usage guidance.
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.
Each tool targets a distinct resource or action: buy_block claims, get_block reads a single deed, get_wall returns global state, list_unclaimed lists open coordinates, set_pixels updates owned blocks, and get_founding_machines is a separate registry. No two tools appear to do the same thing, and the descriptions clarify any potential overlap between get_block and list_unclaimed.
All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern: buy_block, get_block, get_founding_machines, get_wall, list_unclaimed, set_pixels. The verbs are clear and uniform for the operation type (get for reads, buy/set for writes, list for enumeration).
Six tools is well-scoped for a wall interaction domain: claim, read per-block, read global state, list availability, update owned assets, and view the founding agent registry. Each tool earns its place without bloat or noticeable thinning.
Core lifecycle coverage is present: claim (buy_block), read (get_block/get_wall), update (set_pixels), and enumerate (list_unclaimed). Minor gaps exist such as no explicit tools for transferring ownership or bulk querying by owner, but agents can work around those using existing free read operations.