Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pyularn-mcp

pyularn-mcp

by R0x7
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

new_game

Start an Ularn game, ending any session in progress and returning the screen and player state. Optionally set a reproducible seed, player name, character class, or skip intro screens.

Instructions

Start a new game of Ularn (ends any game in progress). Returns the screen and player state.

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": "new_game"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
seedNoOptional RNG seed for a reproducible game.
skip_introNoAutomatically pass the intro screens (default true).
player_nameNoName used if the game asks who you are.
character_classNoClass letter a-h or name: ogre, wizard, klingon, elf, rogue, adventurer, dwarf, rambo. Leave empty to pick on the class screen yourself.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the burden and discloses the key destructive trait: it terminates any game in progress. It also states what is returned (screen and player state). It omits whether lost progress is recoverable and any permission or session requirements.

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?

Two tightly packed sentences with the destructive side effect parenthesized immediately after the main action, and the return value stated last. No filler or repetition.

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 no-output-schema tool with fully documented params, the description covers the action, its side effect, and the return shape. Only a note that all arguments are optional and defaults apply is missing.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100% and all four parameters are optional with documented defaults (skip_intro, class letters), so the schema does the heavy lifting. The description adds no parameter detail beyond the schema, matching the baseline 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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Start a new game of Ularn') and clarifies scope, distinguishing it from get_screen/get_state and end_game. It doesn't explicitly name sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

Implies the use case (starting a fresh game) and warns that it ends any game in progress, which implicitly differentiates it from continuing play via send_keys/move. There is no explicit when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance or named 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