Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Backpack Battles MCP

Backpack Battles MCP

by 53721222-gif
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Local

bpb_unsocket_gem

Removes a gem from a host item's socket and places it in an empty backpack slot, or in the storage box when the backpack is full.

Instructions

从宿主物品的镶嵌位取下宝石。优先放回背包空格；没有空格时放储物箱。

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>"
    },
    "name": "bpb_unsocket_gem"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
host_idYes宿主物品 id
socket_indexNo镶嵌位索引，默认 0

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose one useful behavioral trait beyond the schema: the removed gem goes to an empty backpack slot first, falling back to the storage box. However, it omits failure behavior (what happens if both are full), whether the operation is reversible, and whether removing costs anything.

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?

Two short sentences with zero waste: the action is front-loaded, followed by the destination rule. Nothing is redundant.

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

Completeness3/5

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

For a 2-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the core action and the item's destination, which is the most important gap. It still lacks error/edge-case behavior (empty socket, full inventory), leaving an agent unable to predict outcomes in those cases.

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 coverage is 100%, so both host_id and socket_index are already documented in the schema, including the default of 0 for socket_index. The description adds no syntax or semantic detail beyond restating the host/socket concept, so 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?

The description states a specific verb+resource: remove (取下) a gem from a host item's socket (宿主物品的镶嵌位). It is clearly the inverse of the sibling bpb_socket_gem, though it never names that sibling explicitly. Purpose is unambiguous but sibling differentiation is left implicit in the name pairing.

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: an agent infers it should call this when it wants to detach a gem. There is no explicit when-to-use versus bpb_socket_gem, no statement about prerequisites (e.g. the socket must be occupied), and no 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