Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tokenlife-mcp

tokenlife-mcp

by CyberSealNull
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

看图鉴

tokenlife_codex

View cross-game collection progress: event cards, era cards, endings, achievements, corpus balance, and past lives. Works without starting a game.

Instructions

看这台机器上的跨局收集图鉴：事件卡/时代卡收集进度、达成过的结局（带一句话版）、成就墙、语料库余额、往事录（活过的名字）。不需要开局就能看。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "tokenlife_codex"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It explicitly states this is a view operation (看) and notes the key behavioral trait that it works without starting a game. It does not describe return format or side effects, but for a simple view tool this is adequate.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence with a colon-structured list. It is efficient and front-loaded with the main action, though the list of contents is somewhat long. Still, every part adds useful detail.

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?

Given this is a no-parameter, no-output-schema view tool with no annotations, the description is sufficiently complete. It states what is shown and when it can be used, covering all essential aspects for an agent to select and invoke it correctly.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. The description adds meaning by detailing what the view contains, which compensates for the empty 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 identifies a specific verb ('view') and resource ('cross-session collection codex'), and enumerates specific content types. It distinguishes itself from siblings by emphasizing 'cross-session' and 'no need to start a game', making it unambiguous what this tool does.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description provides clear usage context: it is for viewing persistent collection progress and can be used without starting a game. It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context strongly implies when to use it versus in-game tools like 'look'.

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