Fetch ER:LC API v2 server details like players, staff, logs, queue, calls, and vehicles. Use optional flags to retrieve specific data for monitoring or management.
Get ER:LC API v2 server information. Optional fields can include players, staff, logs, queue, calls and vehicles.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| queue | No | ||
| staff | No | ||
| players | No | ||
| joinLogs | No | ||
| killLogs | No | ||
| modCalls | No | ||
| vehicles | No | ||
| commandLogs | No | ||
| emergencyCalls | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. 'Get' implies a read, but it says nothing about authentication requirements, rate limits, cost of requesting many optional fields, or what an empty/default response looks like. It discloses only that extra data can be included.
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?
Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the resource and followed by the optional-field summary. Minimal waste, though the second sentence is a bare enumeration rather than information-dense phrasing.
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 9-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is only marginally adequate. It conveys the general shape of the response but omits default semantics, parameter-to-field mapping detail, and any behavioral caveats an agent would need to invoke it 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?
Schema coverage is 0% and none of the 9 booleans are described in the schema, so the description has to compensate. It names most categories (players, staff, logs, queue, calls, vehicles), which maps loosely onto the flags, but it never clarifies that 'logs' splits into joinLogs/killLogs/commandLogs or that 'calls' splits into modCalls/emergencyCalls, nor what the default-false behavior means.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Get ER:LC API v2 server information'), and the 'v2' qualifier distinguishes it from the erlc_v1_server sibling. It does not, however, distinguish it from the v2-family tools such as erlc_players, erlc_queue or erlc_staff, which fetch overlapping data.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives. An agent cannot tell from the description whether to call this consolidated endpoint or the individual erlc_players/erlc_queue/erlc_staff tools, nor whether the optional flags are needed for either case.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.