mcp-server-return-to-dark-tower

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Set Lights

tower_set_lights

Set doorway, ledge, and base lights on the Return to Dark Tower game tower with effects like on, off, breathe, and flicker.

Instructions

Control tower lights. Set doorway lights (north/south/east/west at top/middle/bottom), ledge lights (corner positions), and base lights. Effects: off, on, breathe, breatheFast, breathe50percent, flicker.

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": {
      "lights": "<lights>"
    },
    "name": "tower_set_lights"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`lights`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 13, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It only lists capabilities but does not disclose side effects, reversibility, required permissions, or any constraints beyond the listed options.

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 a single sentence with clear enumeration, no redundancy, and front-loads the core purpose. Every word adds value.

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?

For a complex nested parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers most aspects but misses base light position details (side/level) and does not mention return behavior. It is adequate but has gaps.

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 0%, so description compensates significantly. It explains position values for doorway (north/south/east/west at top/middle/bottom), ledge (corner positions), and lists all effect styles. However, it omits that base lights have side and level positions as defined in schema.

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 verb 'Control' or 'Set', the resource 'tower lights', and enumerates specific light types (doorway, ledge, base) and effects. This distinguishes it from siblings like tower_lights_on/off which are simpler.

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 is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as tower_lights_on, tower_light_sequence, or tower_set_led. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusions.

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