Skip to main content
Glama
Backpack Battles MCP

Backpack Battles MCP

by 53721222-gif

bpb_socket_gem

Inserts a gem item into an empty socket slot on a specified host item using host and gem IDs, with an optional socket index, without drop/hotswap.

Instructions

把宝石类物品镶到宿主物品的空镶嵌位。host_id 的 state.sockets 提供 socket_index、occupied、gem_id;宝石可以是背包或储物箱中的散装宝石。镶嵌是原子的,不走 drop/hotswap。

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": {
      "host_id": "<host_id>",
      "gem_id": "<gem_id>"
    },
    "name": "bpb_socket_gem"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
gem_idYes宝石物品 id(如 Lump of Coal / Chipped Ruby)
host_idYes宿主物品 id(武器/防具等,且有 socket)
socket_indexNo镶嵌位索引,默认 0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses that the operation is atomic and does not route through drop/hotswap, which is meaningful behavioral context for a mutation. It stops short of stating failure behavior for an occupied or invalid socket, or what the tool returns.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the action, then the socket-state cross-reference and atomicity note. Dense but no filler; the state.sockets enumeration is slightly compressed but earns its place.

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 3-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the action, gem source, socket discovery, and atomicity. Missing only error/edge-case behavior (occupied socket, invalid gem) to be fully complete.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real value by explaining that host_id's state.sockets exposes socket_index/occupied/gem_id, telling the agent how to discover a valid socket_index. That is meaning beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 and resource: socket a gem into an empty socket on a host item, and notes gems can be loose gems from backpack or storage. This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling bpb_unsocket_gem, though it does not explicitly name or contrast that sibling.

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?

The description implies when to use it (host has an empty socket, gem is loose in inventory/storage) but gives no explicit when-not guidance or prerequisite statement, e.g. what to do if the socket is already occupied. Alternatives like bpb_unsocket_gem are not mentioned.

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