MCP服务器，用于已记录的WoWAudit API。它将公会花名册、团队计划、出勤、每周活动、愿望清单、战利品历史和申请作为结构化工具暴露给Raid Lens和其他MCP客户端。
该服务器使用stdio和@modelcontextprotocol/server 2.x。它支持当前MCP协议，并为旧客户端保留SDK的2025-era初始化握手。每个结果都包含原生structuredContent以及相同JSON的文本块，供不消耗结构化结果的客户端使用。
Node.js 20或更新版本。
WoWAudit团队API密钥。团队管理员可以从团队的设置 > 团队 > API密钥字段复制，或打开https://wowaudit.com/api并选择团队。WoWAudit目前不公开作用域只读公共API密钥；此服务器默认在本地强制只读访问。
Related MCP server: wow-mcp
npm install从.env.example创建.env，然后设置：
WOWAUDIT_API_KEY=your-team-api-key构建服务器：
npm run buildAPI密钥会延迟加载，因此MCP进程可以在没有配置密钥的情况下启动并列出工具。在密钥可用之前，API调用会返回结构化配置错误。
从MCP客户端使用编译后的入口点：
{
"mcpServers": {
"wowaudit": {
"command": "node",
"args": [
"C:\\programming\\typescript\\wowaudit-mcp-server\\dist\\index.js"
]
}
}
}服务器相对于其安装位置解析.env，而不是MCP客户端的工作目录。凭据也可以通过客户端的env配置提供。
WoWAudit团队API密钥可以访问团队的整个环境。此服务器应用以下保护措施：
密钥仅作为Authorization: Bearer标头发送。它永远不会出现在URL、结果或错误中。
仅记录在案的/v1/路由可用。没有任意HTTP工具。
除非设置WOWAUDIT_ENABLE_WRITES=true，否则不会宣传或调用写入工具。HTTP客户端在禁用时独立阻止变异请求。
破坏性删除工具在每次调用时还需要confirm: true。
除非设置WOWAUDIT_ENABLE_APPLICATIONS=true，否则应用程序工具被禁用，因为应用程序可能包含身份信息、问卷答案和上传文件URL。
工具注释向现代MCP客户端标识只读、幂等和破坏性操作。
响应默认限制为2 MiB。仅在必要时调整WOWAUDIT_MAX_RESPONSE_BYTES。
GET响应在进程中缓存30秒。成功的写入会清除缓存。
启用应用程序工具不提供频道授权。Discord集成必须在公开这些工具之前强制执行管理员专用访问。同样，多公会机器人必须将其受信任的Discord公会ID绑定到正确的WoWAudit凭据，而不是在模型控制的工具参数之外。
变量 | 默认值 | 用途 |
| API调用必需 | 团队API密钥 |
|
| API源 |
|
| 请求超时，5,000至120,000毫秒 |
|
| 最大JSON响应，64 KiB至10 MiB |
|
| 允许POST、PUT和DELETE工具 |
|
| 允许敏感应用程序工具 |
默认配置暴露11个非敏感GET工具。设置WOWAUDIT_ENABLE_APPLICATIONS=true会添加两个只读应用程序工具。设置WOWAUDIT_ENABLE_WRITES=true会添加变异工具；保持未设置以保持严格只读的MCP表面。
下面显示的变异工具仅在WOWAUDIT_ENABLE_WRITES=true时注册。应用程序工具仅在WOWAUDIT_ENABLE_APPLICATIONS=true时注册。
工具 | API操作 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
工具 | API操作 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
工具 | API操作 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
wowaudit_update_raid支持状态和日程更改、遭遇启用/禁用列表、报名状态、评论、角色/职业覆盖、选定状态以及特定遭遇的选择。
工具 | API操作 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
所有角色的愿望清单和战利品端点可能很大。优先使用角色特定调用，并在可能的情况下对集合工具使用limit。
工具 | API操作 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
应用程序由WOWAUDIT_ENABLE_APPLICATIONS=true单独控制。变异它们还需要WOWAUDIT_ENABLE_WRITES=true。
成功的工具返回：
{
"data": {},
"meta": {
"endpoint": "/v1/team",
"method": "GET"
}
}接受limit的集合工具还会报告totalItems、returnedItems和truncated。限制在WoWAudit响应后应用，因为公共API不记录服务器端分页。
错误返回isError: true，结构化{ "error": "..." }以及文本回退。上游错误还包括kind、HTTP status和retryAfterSeconds（如果可用）。
npm run dev
npm test测试编译服务器，验证现代和旧版协议协商，检查所有工具模式和注释，测试安全门，并在不使用真实API密钥的情况下测试HTTP客户端。
对于小型实时只读检查：
npm run test:live实时冒烟测试调用团队、周期、花名册和团队列表端点。它从不调用应用程序或写入工具。
公共文档没有定义分页或速率限制合同。
文档主要提供响应示例，而不是严格的可重用模式，因此有效载荷字段可能会演变。
嵌入的文档包含一个看起来像开发环境的服务器URL。此项目默认使用已确认的生产源https://api.wowaudit.com。
WoWAudit接受查询参数中的API密钥，但此服务器有意仅使用授权标头以减少凭据泄露。
MIT，版权归WoWAudit MCP Server贡献者所有。
Get attendance statistics, optionally scoped by instance, encounter, and date range.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum top-level collection entries returned after WoWAudit responds. The upstream API does not document pagination. | |
| endDate | No | ||
| instance | No | ||
| encounter | No | Encounter name or ID. WoWAudit ignores it without instance. | |
| startDate | No |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations clearly declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true, so the tool's safety profile is well-covered. The description adds useful context about optional scoping but does not explain what 'attendance statistics' entail (e.g., format, counts, per-character). Since annotations already communicate the most critical behavioral traits, the description's added value is moderate but nontrivial.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and optional filters. Every word adds value; there is no redundancy or filler. This is an excellent example of conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has 5 parameters (most optional), an output schema, and rich annotations, the description is somewhat minimal. It covers the core scoping options but does not explain what the attendance statistics contain or how to interpret the response. While the output schema may provide structure, the description could be more informative. This is adequate but not complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 40%, meaning most parameters lack descriptions. The description mentions scoping by instance, encounter, and date range, which maps to the instance, encounter, startDate, and endDate parameters. However, the limit parameter's description is already in the schema (cadence 100%), so the description adds no further meaning. The encounter parameter's dependency on instance is covered in the schema description. Overall, the description only partially compensates for the low schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states that the tool retrieves attendance statistics, with optional scoping by instance, encounter, and date range. This makes the purpose clear and specific, distinguishing it from sibling tools that focus on teams, periods, characters, historical data, raids, wishlists, or loot history. A score of 5 is not given because the description does not explicitly contrast with siblings, though the domain is unique enough.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates when to use optional filters (instance, encounter, date range) but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, such as wowaudit_list_historical_data or wowaudit_get_character_history. No exclusions or prerequisites are mentioned. This is a minimal viable score.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get one character's activity history and best known gear by equipment slot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | WoWAudit character ID. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the tool returns activity history and gear by equipment slot, which is useful output context but does not disclose additional behavioral traits like rate limits, authentication needs, or data retention. Neutral and non-contradictory.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that packs essential information. Every word is necessary; no filler or redundancy. Ideal for quick agent scanning.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the output schema exists (so return values are already documented), the annotations cover safety, and the tool has only one well-described parameter, the description is sufficiently complete. No major gaps are present for an agent to invoke it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the 'id' parameter has a clear description). The description reinforces that the tool operates on a single character, but does not add new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('Get') and the resource ('one character's activity history and best known gear by equipment slot'). It is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools like wowaudit_get_loot_history or wowaudit_get_character_wishlist by focusing on overall history and gear per slot. No ambiguity.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., wowaudit_get_loot_history for loot, wowaudit_list_characters for a roster). It implies single-character scope but does not state exclusions or prerequisites. An agent must infer usage from context alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get detailed Droptimizer wishlist data for one character.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | WoWAudit character ID. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds that the data is 'detailed Droptimizer wishlist', but does not explain what 'detailed' means or note any specific behavioral traits (e.g., pagination, data freshness). No contradiction observed.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, front-loaded with verb and resource, zero wasted words. Ideal for quick parsing by an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple tool with one required parameter, full schema coverage, and an output schema defining return shape, the description is nearly complete. Missing a brief clarification of what 'Droptimizer' entails could improve completeness for agents unfamiliar with the domain, but not critical.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Input schema has 100% coverage with a single parameter 'id' described as 'WoWAudit character ID.' The description does not add further meaning beyond this, meeting the baseline for high schema coverage.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Clearly states verb 'Get' and resource 'detailed Droptimizer wishlist data for one character', making the action specific. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tool wowaudit_list_wishlists, which could also involve wishlist data, missing a nuance that this is per-character.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
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 wowaudit_list_wishlists or wowaudit_get_character_history. With ten sibling tools, the absence of contextual usage instructions leaves the agent to infer the appropriate selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get loot awarded during a keystone season, including recipients, award responses, old items, notes, and wishlist values.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum top-level collection entries returned after WoWAudit responds. The upstream API does not document pagination. | |
| seasonId | Yes | Keystone season ID from wowaudit_get_period. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering safety. The description adds value by listing the types of data included (recipients, awards, etc.), which is beyond the annotations. However, it does not mention pagination behavior or limits, which are partially covered in the schema description for the limit parameter.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence that efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and key output details. No unnecessary words or repetition. Slightly more detail could be added without harming conciseness, but it's well-structured.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the simple nature of the tool (2 params, read-only, output schema exists), the description adequately covers what the tool does and what it returns. The schema and annotations fill in the remaining details. Could mention that seasonId is required, but that is already in the schema.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Both parameters have detailed descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), including the seasonId reference to another tool and the limit behavior with pagination note. The tool description does not add any additional parameter-level information, so baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool retrieves loot awarded during a keystone season, listing specific included fields (recipients, award responses, old items, notes, wishlist values). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wowaudit_get_character_history (individual character) and wowaudit_list_historical_data (broader history).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use when needing loot history for a season, but does not explicitly differentiate from alternatives like wowaudit_get_character_history or wowaudit_list_historical_data. No direct guidance on when to prefer this tool over others.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the current Blizzard keystone period and WoWAudit season identifiers used by historical and loot tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, providing a strong behavioral baseline. The description adds context by revealing the tool returns identifiers discovered and used by other tools, which justifies the non-destructive, idempotent nature. However, it doesn't describe any additional behavioral traits like whether the season identifiers are stable within a season or change on reset, so the description adds limited value beyond annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 16 words that front-loads the action and resource. Every part of the sentence earns its place: it specifies what is retrieved (period and season identifiers) and why ('used by historical and loot tools'). There is no wasted verbiage.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given that the tool has no parameters, has annotations covering its safety profile, and has an output schema (which is not null), the description need not explain return values. The single sentence adequately addresses the tool's purpose and context. The score would be 5 if it briefly noted that this is a static, reference-data endpoint (e.g., 'returns identifiers that change infrequently').
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has 0 parameters and the schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameters to document. The description adds no parameter information but none is needed. The score reflects that the description provides no misleading or missing parameter details, and the baseline for a zero-parameter tool is high.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Get') and clearly identifies the resources ('current Blizzard keystone period and WoWAudit season identifiers'). It also distinguishes its purpose from sibling tools by explicitly stating the returned identifiers are 'used by historical and loot tools', which helps differentiate it from tools like wowaudit_get_team or wowaudit_get_character_history.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly states the context of use: these identifiers are consumed by other tools (historical and loot tools). While it doesn't explicitly say when not to use this tool or name alternative tools, the mention of downstream consumers provides clear guidance on when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get a raid's detailed signups, comments, selections, and enabled encounter plan.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| id | Yes | WoWAudit raid ID. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds value by listing the specific data fields returned (signups, comments, selections, enabled encounter plan), which is behavioral context beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 12 words, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and contains no extraneous information. Every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the single parameter, rich annotations, and existence of an output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns. No additional context (e.g., pagination, limits) seems necessary for this simple read operation.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'id' has a description: 'WoWAudit raid ID.'). The description adds no new meaning beyond the schema; it merely implies the parameter is the raid ID. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'raid', and specifies the details included: signups, comments, selections, and enabled encounter plan. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like wowaudit_get_team or wowaudit_list_raids.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for fetching detailed raid information, but does not explicitly contrast with alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use guidance. The agent can infer from resource name and sibling list, but no explicit context is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Get the authenticated WoWAudit team, guild identity, refresh timestamps, raid-day schedule, and wishlist freshness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the agent knows this is a safe read operation. The description adds value by specifying the exact data returned (team, guild identity, refresh timestamps, raid-day schedule, wishlist freshness), which is beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that efficiently lists the key components returned. Every phrase earns its place; there is no wasted text. It is front-loaded with the primary action and resource.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters, has an output schema), the description is complete. It covers the main output categories, and since the output schema exists, the agent can infer the exact structure. No additional context is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are no parameters (0), so the input schema is trivially covered at 100%. The description does not need to explain parameters, and the baseline for 0-parameter tools is 4. The description does not add parameter semantics, but that is acceptable since none exist.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'authenticated WoWAudit team' and lists specific sub-components (guild identity, refresh timestamps, raid-day schedule, wishlist freshness). This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like get_character_history or get_raid, which operate on different entities.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention that this is for team-level configuration versus character or raid data, nor does it specify when not to use it. Given the sibling list, explicit usage context would be helpful.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List tracked roster characters with realm, class, role, rank, tracking status, note, and WoWAudit identifiers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum top-level collection entries returned after WoWAudit responds. The upstream API does not document pagination. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds behavioral context by mentioning the data fields and that the upstream API does not document pagination, which is useful for understanding behavior beyond the annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Single sentence, no wasted words. Every element (verb, resource, fields) earns its place. Front-loaded with 'List tracked roster characters'.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the parameter count is 1, all schema parameters are described, annotations cover safety, and an output schema exists, the description is complete enough. The pagination caveat adds useful context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% (the single parameter 'limit' is fully described in the schema), so baseline is 3. The description does not add any additional semantics beyond the schema's parameter documentation.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('List'), identifies the resource ('tracked roster characters'), and enumerates the fields returned (realm, class, role, etc.). This clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like wowaudit_list_raids or wowaudit_get_character_history, which operate on different resources.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies this is for getting a roster overview, but it does not explicitly state when to use this vs. alternatives like wowaudit_get_team or wowaudit_list_historical_data. No when-not-to-use guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List roster activity for a Blizzard period, including completed dungeons, world quests, and Great Vault options.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum top-level collection entries returned after WoWAudit responds. The upstream API does not document pagination. | |
| period | No | Blizzard period from wowaudit_get_period. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations provide strong behavioral cues: readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false. The description adds further value by noting the items listed (dungeons, world quests, Vault), which goes beyond annotations. However, it doesn't mention the lack of pagination or potential response size limits, which would be useful but not required given the annotations already assure safety and idempotence.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is clear and to the point. It conveys the key purpose and content without any extraneous words. It earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema, the description need not explain return values. With 2 parameters (0 required), strong annotations, and clear purpose, the description is nearly complete. The only minor gap is the lack of mention about pagination or the fact that upstream API does not support it, but the input schema already notes that in the 'limit' description. Overall very sufficient.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add any parameter semantics beyond the schema—it doesn't explain how 'limit' affects the output or how 'period' relates to the Blizzard context. Both parameters are well-documented in the schema already, so no deduction, but no added value either.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states 'List roster activity for a Blizzard period' and lists specific content types (completed dungeons, world quests, Great Vault options), which is specific and actionable. However, it does not distinguish this tool from sibling tools like wowaudit_get_character_history or wowaudit_get_loot_history, which might also list similar data, so it's not a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when needing roster activity for a period, but provides no guidance on when not to use it or how it compares to alternatives like wowaudit_get_character_history. There's no explicit context about prerequisites (e.g., needing a valid period from wowaudit_get_period) or limitations (e.g., no pagination support). The annotation 'idempotentHint' suggests safe repeated calls, but this is not mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List upcoming raids, optionally including past raids, with schedule, instance, difficulty, status, and signup counts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum top-level collection entries returned after WoWAudit responds. The upstream API does not document pagination. | |
| includePast | No | Include past raids in addition to upcoming raids. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=true, so the description bears less burden. The description adds context that the output includes schedule, instance, difficulty, status, and signup counts, which is helpful but does not disclose other behavioral traits (e.g., pagination limits, authentication needs, or performance characteristics). No contradiction with annotations.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence of 15 words, front-loaded with the verb 'List', and efficiently conveys the main purpose and key output fields without any filler or repetition.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the low complexity (2 optional parameters, output schema exists, annotations comprehensive) the description covers the essential scope (upcoming/past raids, key fields). Some minor gaps exist (default limit, time horizon for 'upcoming'), but overall it is sufficiently complete for a read-only list tool with good schema coverage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% (both limit and includePast have descriptions). The tool description adds minimal extra meaning: 'optionally including past raids' maps to includePast, but the schema already covers defaults and constraints. The limit parameter's note about undocumented pagination is in the schema, not the description, so the description does not add value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool lists raids with a specific verb ('list') and resource ('raids'), and includes optional past raids and key data fields (schedule, instance, difficulty, status, signup counts). This distinguishes it from siblings like wowaudit_get_raid (single raid) and wowaudit_list_historical_data (historical data).
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description does not provide any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like wowaudit_get_raid or wowaudit_list_characters. There is no explicit when/when-not context or mention of sibling tools, leaving the agent to infer usage solely from the name and purpose.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
List character Droptimizer wishlists and item upgrades. Prefer wowaudit_get_character_wishlist when one character is known because this response can be large.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum top-level collection entries returned after WoWAudit responds. The upstream API does not document pagination. |
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| data | Yes | |
| meta | Yes |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint false, covering safety. The description adds valuable behavioral context: the response can be large and the limit parameter's pagination caveat. This exceeds what annotations provide.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences: first states the tool's purpose, second provides usage guidance. No wasted words, front-loaded with essential information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
With an output schema present, the description need not detail return values. It covers purpose, usage preference, and response size. Could mention that without a limit all wishlists are returned, but this is minor. Overall complete for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100%, so the input schema fully documents the optional limit parameter (integer, min/max, description about pagination). The description does not add new semantics beyond the schema, warranting the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states it lists character Droptimizer wishlists and item upgrades. It also distinguishes from the sibling tool wowaudit_get_character_wishlist by noting that this tool is for broader lists and can produce large responses.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description explicitly recommends preferring wowaudit_get_character_wishlist when a single character is known because this response can be large. This provides clear guidance on when to use each tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0wowaudit_get_attendancewowaudit_get_character_historywowaudit_get_character_wishlistwowaudit_get_loot_historywowaudit_get_periodwowaudit_get_raidwowaudit_get_teamwowaudit_list_characterswowaudit_list_historical_datawowaudit_list_raidswowaudit_list_wishlistsScored across 11 tools
Most tools target distinct resources: team/period/characters/raids/attendance/wishlists/loot. However, wowaudit_list_historical_data and wowaudit_get_loot_history both involve historical activity and loot, which could cause some confusion despite different scopes.
All tools follow a consistent wowaudit_verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_raids, get_raid, get_attendance). The naming is predictable and easy to understand.
With 11 tools, the server covers a focused domain (WoWAudit team management) without unnecessary clutter. Each tool serves a clear purpose and the count feels well-scoped.
The tool set covers team info, roster characters, raids, attendance, wishlists, and loot history. Missing are write operations (e.g., add character, update wishlist) but for a read-only audit tool, the coverage is solid. Minor gap: no direct tool for managing raid signups.
Read and edit GA4, Search Console and Google Tag Manager from any MCP client. 29 tools.
US government data as clean JSON for AI agents: SAM.gov contract opportunities, USAspending awards, Grants.gov grants, House STOCK Act trades, and SEC EDGAR filings (Form 4 insider trades, 8-K events, 13F holdings, 13D/G stakes, XBRL fundamentals, 10-K/10-Q sections). 19 read-only tools. Data is as fresh as each source publishes; congressional trades lag up to 45 days and report dollar ranges (House only). Free tier, no card.
Manage your RoyalTea game studio: tasks, milestones, team, and royalty data. 77 tools, OAuth 2.1.
Browse OfficeRnD members, bookings, memberships, invoices and tickets, with optional write access.
