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

Play Sound

tower_play_sound

Play any sound from the board game tower's audio library by specifying a sound index (1-113), with optional looping and volume adjustment (0 loudest to 3 softest).

Instructions

Play a sound from the tower audio library by index number (1-113). Volume is 0 (loudest) to 3 (soft).

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": {
      "soundIndex": "<soundIndex>"
    },
    "name": "tower_play_sound"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
loopNoLoop the sound continuously
volumeNoVolume level: 0=Loud, 1=Medium, 2=Quiet, 3=Soft
soundIndexYesSound index (1-113) from tower audio library

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided, so the description carries the burden. It explains volume levels and index range, but does not disclose potential errors, side effects, or the effect of the loop parameter. The description is partially transparent but misses critical behavioral details.

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 extremely concise, using two sentences to convey the essential purpose and volume details. No wasted words, and the key information is front-loaded.

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 simple audio player tool, the description covers core functionality. However, it omits details about the loop parameter and possible return values or error handling. Given no output schema and moderate complexity, it is nearly complete.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description rephrases index and volume meaning but does not add significant new semantic information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 clearly states 'Play a sound from the tower audio library by index number', specifying the verb (Play), resource (sound), and scope (by index). It distinguishes from sibling tools like tower_play_sound_by_name, which plays by name, and tower_list_sounds.

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 description provides volume levels and index range, implying usage but lacks explicit guidance on when to use index vs name, or any when-not scenarios. It does not mention alternatives or prerequisites.

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