Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sts1

sts1

by KeiNodens
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

proceed

Press the generic continue button to advance through prompts and transitions in Slay the Spire.

Instructions

Press the generic proceed/continue button.

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": "proceed"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it discloses almost nothing: it does not say whether pressing advances game state, whether it is idempotent, what happens if no proceed button is present, or whether it can fail. 'Generic' is the only behavioral hint.

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?

One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler or repetition. It is arguably too terse to earn a 5, since the size reflects under-specification rather than efficient completeness.

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?

With zero parameters and an output schema present, the description does not need to explain return values, so the remaining burden is small. However, for a state-mutating UI action with no annotations, it should at least say when the button exists and what the click effect is; that gap keeps it at minimally adequate.

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 takes zero parameters and the empty schema exhausts the structured surface, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is no parameter semantics the description could usefully add.

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

Purpose4/5

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

States a concrete action ('press') applied to a specific UI element ('the generic proceed/continue button'). The word 'generic' hints it is distinct from the more specific siblings (confirm, choose, play_card), but it never explicitly says how it differs from 'confirm' or 'end_turn'.

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?

The description gives no when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. With siblings like confirm, choose, end_turn and run_turn in the same namespace, an agent has no stated rule for picking 'proceed' over those alternatives.

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