Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Backpack Battles MCP

Backpack Battles MCP

by 53721222-gif
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

bpb_start_battle

Initiates a Backpack Battles combat by normalizing item positions and owner flags without moving cross-bag items into storage; use the wait tool afterward to get the result.

Instructions

开始战斗；开战前只规范化物品位置/placedByPlayer，不会把跨包物品移入储物箱。随后用 bpb_wait_for_result 等待结算。

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_start_battle"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and delivers specific detail: before battle it only normalizes item positions/placedByPlayer and will not move cross-bag items into storage. This discloses a meaningful side effect and non-effect. It does not cover prerequisites, failure modes, or the exact battle flow, but the key pre-battle behavior is transparent.

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?

The description is two compact sentences with no wasted words. The main action is front-loaded, followed by important pre-battle scoping and the next-step recommendation.

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 zero-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the action, the specific pre-battle normalization behavior, and the necessary follow-up tool. It does not explain battle initiation conditions or results, but those are partly addressed by pointing to bpb_wait_for_result.

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 has zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics to clarify. The baseline score of 4 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: '开始战斗' (start battle). It does not explicitly differentiate from siblings like bpb_start_run or bpb_enter_survival, but the purpose is clear.

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?

It indicates the next step (use bpb_wait_for_result to wait for settlement) and implies usage when starting a battle. However, it gives no explicit guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives like bpb_start_run or bpb_enter_survival, nor any exclusions.

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