Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-server-return-to-dark-tower

mcp-server-return-to-dark-tower

by ChessMess
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Break Seal

tower_break_seal

Breaks a seal on the specified side and level of the tower, playing the corresponding animation and sound.

Instructions

Break a seal at the specified side and level. Plays the seal-breaking animation and sound.

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": {
      "side": "<side>",
      "level": "<level>"
    },
    "name": "tower_break_seal"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sideYesSide of the tower
levelYesLevel of the seal
volumeNoVolume: 0=Loud, 1=Medium, 2=Quiet, 3=Mute

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It discloses that an animation and sound play, but does not state that the seal becomes broken, whether the action is reversible, or any side effects on the tower state. Critical behavioral details are missing.

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 consists of two short, direct sentences. Every word serves a purpose: first sentence states the core action with parameters, second adds behavioral context. No redundant or vague language.

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

Completeness2/5

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

Despite 100% schema coverage and no output schema, the description omits what happens after execution (e.g., return value, state change, error conditions). With many sibling tools, it should explain the outcome or how to verify success.

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%, with clear enums and bounds for all three parameters. The description merely reiterates 'side and level' without adding new meaning (e.g., format, constraints, or defaults). Baseline score is appropriate.

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 clearly states the action ('Break a seal') and identifies the parameters (side, level) with additional detail about animation and sound. However, it does not distinguish from sibling tools like tower_reset_seals or tower_get_broken_seals, missing a chance to differentiate.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites (e.g., connection state) or whether to check if the seal is already broken. The agent is left to infer appropriateness from context.

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