Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Backpack Battles MCP

Backpack Battles MCP

by 53721222-gif
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

bpb_get_stamina

Analyze combat endurance by retrieving player stamina stats and item-specific stamina costs. Track total consumption of deployed items for strategic gameplay.

Instructions

读取耐力信息：玩家 stamina/max_stamina/stamina_regen（游戏未暴露时对应字段为 null 且 available=false）、每件物品的 stamina_cost/stamina_factor/types/伤害/冷却，以及已部署物品的总耐力消耗。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "bpb_get_stamina"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a genuinely useful behavioral trait — that unavailable game fields come back as null with available=false — but it never states that the call is read-only/side-effect free or describes output shape beyond the field list.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with the purpose and then packs the return-field inventory plus the null/available edge case into one clause. Nothing is repeated and no filler is present.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema and no parameters, the description must carry the return contract, and it does — naming player fields, per-item fields, and deployed-item totals. The only gap is the absence of any statement about side effects or how null fields interact with the aggregate total.

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 takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate and the baseline of 4 applies. The field enumeration in the description serves as return-value context rather than parameter meaning.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (读取) and resource (耐力/stamina) and enumerates the domain it covers: player stamina, max stamina, regen, per-item stamina costs, and total deployed drain. That scope implicitly separates it from siblings like bpb_health or bpb_get_state, though it never names those siblings 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?

Usage is only implied by the tool name and by what it reads; there is no statement of when to call it versus bpb_health, bpb_get_state, or bpb_get_backpack, and no prerequisites or exclusions. An agent can infer it is the stamina-inspection call, but nothing routes it explicitly.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools