Backpack Battles MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

bpb_wait_for_result

Waits for the battle result screen, optionally auto-skips it to return the next round's shop state, and signals when a survival-mode choice is required.

Instructions

等待战斗结算界面出现；auto_skip=true 时自动跳过并返回下一回合商店状态。十胜时不会先跳过结算（包括原生提示的 1 秒延迟窗口）；会返回 survival_choice_required，等待选择生存模式或到此为止。

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_wait_for_result"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`auto_skip`	No
`timeout_seconds`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 31, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

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 discloses important traits: auto-skip behavior, return to next-round shop state, ten-win non-skip behavior including the native 1-second delay window, and the survival_choice_required return. It still does not explain timeout behavior or the auto_skip=false path.

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?

The description is dense but front-loaded with the core wait behavior, and every clause adds useful information about auto-skip or the ten-win exception. It could be structured more clearly, but there is little wasted text.

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?

There is no output schema or annotations, so the description must explain returns and edge cases. It covers the shop-state and survival_choice_required returns, but omits timeout behavior and the non-auto-skip result, which are important for calling a blocking wait tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must explain parameters. It explains auto_skip=true meaningfully, but never mentions timeout_seconds or what auto_skip=false does, leaving half of the parameters undocumented beyond their names.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description gives a specific verb and resource: waiting for the battle settlement screen to appear. It also clarifies the auto-skip branch and the ten-win exception, which distinguishes this from a plain skip tool.

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 usage is implied as calling after a battle to wait for settlement, and the ten-win exception is described. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this instead of siblings like bpb_skip_result, bpb_choose_survival, or bpb_stop_here.

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