Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tokenlife-mcp

tokenlife-mcp

by CyberSealNull
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

看当前状态

tokenlife_look

Check the life simulation's current state: year, six-axis stats, active card with numbered options, ending status. Bond cards show an AI hint to treat the card's character as your master.

Instructions

看这一生当前的状态：第几年、六轴数值、当前这张卡（类型/标题/正文/带序号的选项），是否已到结局。羁绊类卡会附一行 ai_hint 提醒你把卡里那个人当成你的主人。

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_look"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses important behavioral details such as including an ai_hint for bond-type cards and specifying what status elements are returned. It does not discuss side effects or permissions, but as a read-only inspection tool, the risk is minimal.

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 two efficient sentences, front-loaded with the purpose and enumerating details without any fluff. Every phrase contributes meaning.

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 zero-parameter inspection tool without an output schema, the description gives a solid overview of what will be returned, including special behavior for bond cards. It does not cover edge cases or exact formatting, but it is sufficiently complete for the tool's simplicity.

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 the baseline score is 4. The description adds no parameter information because none is needed; the empty schema is fully covered.

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 uses a specific verb '看' (view) with a clear resource '当前状态' (current state), and enumerates exactly what is shown: year, six-axis values, current card details, and ending status. This clearly distinguishes it from the action-oriented sibling tools like start, choose, and shop.

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 implies the tool is for inspecting current status, which is obvious given the name and sibling actions. However, it does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention exclusions, so it falls short of a 5.

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