Skip to main content
Glama
Koodattu

wow-addon-api-mcp

by Koodattu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

lookup_api

Read-onlyIdempotent

Find an exact World of Warcraft API element (function, event, enum, structure, widget, or system) for a chosen patch and channel, returning the precise documentation snapshot for that version.

Instructions

Look up an exact WoW API function, method, event, enum, structure, widget, or system in one patch in the selected channel.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
kindNoOptional result category
nameYesExact full or short name, for example C_UnitAuras.GetAuraDataByIndex or AuraContainer
channelYesGame channel; never inferred from a version number
versionYesPatch, full client build, build number, or latest within the selected channel

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / channel
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Game channel; never inferred from a version number",
+  "enum": [
+    "retail",
+    "forever"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / version / description
      Previous value: -"Retail patch, full client build, build number, or latest"New value: +"Patch, full client build, build number, or latest within the selected channel"
    • addedInput schema / properties / version / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "name"
-]New value: +[
+  "name",
+  "channel",
+  "version"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so this is clearly a safe read operation. The description adds behavioral scoping: results are exact, patch-bound, and channel-bound. It does not disclose what happens when no match exists or what the returned object looks like, but the annotation safety profile covers the main behavioral risk.

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?

Single sentence with no filler, front-loading the verb and object ('Look up an exact...') before the scoping details. Every phrase adds information.

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 100% schema coverage and read-only annotations, the agent can correctly populate required fields. But with no output schema and a large sibling list, the description does not explain the return shape or how this tool relates to specialized lookup/search siblings, leaving a meaningful gap for confident selection.

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?

Every parameter (kind, name, channel, version) is documented in the schema with descriptions and enums, so schema coverage is 100%. The description contributes no extra parameter meaning beyond restating the artifact categories, so it hits the schema-documented baseline of 3.

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?

The description names a concrete action ('look up') and a specific object ('exact WoW API function, method, event, enum, structure, widget, or system') and narrows scope to 'one patch' and the 'selected channel'. It is clear, but it does not explicitly distinguish lookup_api from specialized siblings like get_enum, get_event, or search_api, so full differentiation is left to the agent.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Exact' implies the tool is for precise known-name lookups rather than fuzzy discovery, and the patch/channel constraint gives clear context. However, it never states when to prefer search_api or a specialized get_* sibling, and it offers no exclusion criteria, so guidance is only implicit.

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