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

Check Seal Status

tower_is_seal_broken

Check whether a specific seal on a tower side and level has been broken.

Instructions

Check if a specific seal has been broken

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_is_seal_broken"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
sideYesSide of the tower
levelYesLevel of the seal

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only says 'check if broken'. It does not disclose whether the tool is read-only, what happens if the seal is already broken, or any side effects. The return format is not mentioned.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence with no fluff, but it is under-specified for the complexity of the tool. Conciseness is positive but not at the expense of adequacy.

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?

Lacks output schema and annotations; description should clarify return type (e.g., boolean) and typical usage scenarios. Among many sibling tools, this minimal description leaves the agent guessing about integration.

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% with enums and descriptions for side and level. The description adds no extra meaning beyond 'specific seal', so it meets the baseline but provides no additional value.

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 tool checks if a specific seal is broken, with verb 'check' and resource 'seal'. However, it doesn't distinguish from sibling tools like tower_get_broken_seals, which lists all broken seals, missing an opportunity for disambiguation.

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 versus alternatives (e.g., tower_break_seal to break seals, tower_get_broken_seals to list all broken seals). The absence of context leaves the agent without decision support.

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