Pokemon Go MCP Server

get_raid_recommendations

Find raid recommendations by tier or shiny availability. Filter raids by difficulty and shiny chance.

Instructions

Get raid recommendations based on specified criteria.

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": "get_raid_recommendations"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`tier`	No	Optional tier filter (1, 3, 5, Mega)
`shiny_only`	No	If True, only show raids where shiny is available

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jul 4, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description must disclose behavior. It fails to mention any behavioral traits such as how recommendations are generated, rate limits, or authentication requirements. The output schema is present but the description provides no additional transparency.

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 concise sentence of 8 words, which is efficient and front-loaded. However, it may be overly brief to the point of losing clarity.

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?

Given the complexity of sibling tools and the presence of an output schema, the description is incomplete. It does not explain what constitutes a 'recommendation' or how criteria are used, leaving the agent with insufficient context.

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 coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters adequately. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, resulting in a baseline score.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Get raid recommendations based on specified criteria' is somewhat vague; it doesn't specify what 'recommendations' means or how it differs from sibling tools like get_raid_by_tier or get_shiny_raids. It is not misleading but lacks specificity.

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. With many sibling tools that overlap in functionality, the description should clarify the recommendation context, but it does not.

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

Deploy Server