Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wyt-mcp

wyt-mcp

by MLMecham
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

combat_action

Choose a combat action: strike, ability, use item, defend, or flee. The server resolves your move and the enemy's response for each round.

Instructions

One round: strike | ability | use_item | defend | flee. The server resolves your action and the enemy's answer.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "combat_action"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
argNo
actionYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations provided, so description must disclose behavior. It mentions server resolution and enemy's answer but omits side effects, state changes, prerequisites (e.g., being in combat), or what happens on failure.

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?

Exceptionally concise: two sentences with no wasted words. The first sentence front-loads the available actions and the second explains the response, making it easy to parse.

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?

Adequate for a simple game combat action, but incomplete for an AI agent. Missing details on prerequisites (e.g., must be in combat), return values, error states, and whether 'flee' always succeeds. Given no annotations or output schema, more context would help.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 0% description coverage. Description partially explains 'action' by listing options and hints that 'arg' is for ability or item name, but does not clarify that 'arg' is only needed for 'ability' and 'use_item', nor what valid values for 'action' are beyond the list.

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?

Description clearly states it performs a combat action round and lists possible actions (strike, ability, etc.), distinguishing it from a simple attack tool like the sibling 'attack'. However, it could be more explicit about how it differs from 'attack'.

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 on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'attack', 'flee', or other combat-related siblings. The description implies it is for taking any combat action but doesn't clarify prerequisites or context.

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