Backpack Battles MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

bpb_set_fusion_lock

Lock or unlock automatic fusion for backpack or storage items to prevent or allow auto-combining. Check result via item.fusion_locked in state.

Instructions

锁定或解除物品的自动融合。locked=true 锁定（阻止自动合成），locked=false 解除；背包和储物箱物品可用，背包本体不可用。state 中 item.fusion_locked 反映结果。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "item_id": "<item_id>",
      "locked": "<locked>"
    },
    "name": "bpb_set_fusion_lock"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`locked`	Yes	true=锁定融合，false=解除融合锁定
`item_id`	Yes	物品 id（背包或储物箱）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose real behavior—that the flag prevents automatic crafting, that only items inside backpacks/boxes qualify, and that state.item.fusion_locked reflects the outcome—but says nothing about required preconditions (e.g. edit mode) or failure behavior.

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?

Three short clauses, front-loaded with the action, with the boolean mapping immediately following. Slight redundancy with the schema's parameter descriptions costs a point but there is no padding.

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?

For a two-parameter mutation tool with no output schema, the description usefully tells the agent where to verify the result (state.item.fusion_locked) and which items are eligible. The main remaining gap is prerequisite state such as whether an edit mode must be active.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented there, including the item location. The description restates the same locked semantics and adds no format, range, or edge-case detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 action pair (lock/unlock) on a specific resource (an item's automatic fusion), and adds the effect that locking blocks auto-crafting. The purpose is unambiguous and no sibling tool in the list touches fusion, so the agent can route here without opening the schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly maps locked=true to locking and locked=false to releasing, and states the applicable scope (backpack and storage-box items are valid; the backpack itself is not). It gives context and constraints but names no alternative tools or error/when-not conditions.

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