mcp-server-return-to-dark-tower

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Set Individual LED

tower_set_led

Sets a single LED on the Return to Dark Tower board game by specifying layer, light index, and effect. Control the top ring, middle ring, bottom ring, ledge, or base with effects like on, off, breathe, or flicker.

Instructions

Set a single LED by layer and light index. Layers: 0=top ring, 1=middle ring, 2=bottom ring, 3=ledge, 4=base1, 5=base2. Light index 0-3.

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": {
      "layer": "<layer>",
      "lightIndex": "<lightIndex>",
      "effect": "<effect>"
    },
    "name": "tower_set_led"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`loop`	No	Loop the effect
`layer`	Yes	Layer index 0-5
`effect`	Yes	Effect: 0=off, 1=on, 2=breathe, 3=breatheFast, 4=breathe50%, 5=flicker
`lightIndex`	Yes	Light index 0-3 within the layer

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It does not disclose behavioral traits such as immediate effect, return value, or destructiveness. The effect parameter is not explained in the description (only in schema).

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 very concise (two sentences), front-loads the core purpose, and uses a clear structure with bullet-like layer mappings. Every sentence adds value.

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?

The description omits explanation of the effect and loop parameters, which are crucial for understanding the tool's behavior. With no output schema, it should also clarify what happens upon invocation. The tool's complexity (4 params, 3 required) demands more complete documentation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with descriptions for all parameters. The description adds value by explicitly mapping layers and light index ranges, which goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions. However, it does not explain the effect or loop parameters.

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 the tool sets a single LED by layer and light index, with explicit layer mapping and index range. It distinguishes from sibling tools that operate on multiple lights or sequences.

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 implies usage for individual LED control but provides no explicit guidance on when to use vs alternatives like tower_set_lights or tower_light_sequence. No caveats or when-not-to-use information.

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