Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
m5-petit-desire

m5-petit-desire

by PetitOnes
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

satisfy_desire

Reduce a robot's desire level by 0.4 after you act on the desire. Pass the desire name to satisfy it; call again if the level remains high.

Instructions

Satisfy a desire after taking an action. Pass the desire_name you just acted on. The level drops by 0.4. Call again if still high.

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": {
      "desire_name": "<desire_name>"
    },
    "name": "satisfy_desire"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
desire_nameYesName of the desire to satisfy: （desire_config.json を確認）

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden. It clearly discloses the core behavioral trait: 'The level drops by 0.4' and that repeated calls are possible. It does not cover error handling or prerequisites, but the essential mutation behavior is transparent.

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?

The description is two short sentences, front-loaded with the action and outcome. Every phrase contributes: the trigger, the parameter, the numeric effect, and the repeat condition.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage trigger, and effect. It is sufficient, but lacks explicit mention of invalid desire names or return values, so it is not fully complete.

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 schema already covers the single parameter 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning by requiring the desire_name to be the one 'you just acted on' and references desire_config.json for valid names, which goes beyond the bare schema.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description uses a specific verb 'satisfy' and identifies the resource 'desire', with a clear effect: 'The level drops by 0.4.' This distinguishes it from sibling tools like boost_desire, which would increase the level.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It explicitly states when to use the tool: 'after taking an action' and 'Pass the desire_name you just acted on.' It also gives a conditional instruction, 'Call again if still high.' It does not name alternatives explicitly, so it misses the top score.

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