Skip to main content
Glama
Silverkazimi

splinterlands-mcp

by Silverkazimi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

land_lineup_snapshot

Read-onlyIdempotent

Fetch a player's current land plot resources and selected worker/card candidates to prepare an estimator-ready lineup baseline for Splinterlands Land staking decisions.

Instructions

Gather an explicit player's current Grain/Wood/Stone/Iron plot and selected candidate cards for land_lineup_estimate. Supply exactly one numeric/display plot_id or deed_uid. Select up to ten card detail IDs or twenty UIDs; current workers are always included. At most ten logical GETs, including one bounded-memory full collection stream; no automatic pagination or per-card lookup loops. Fetches deed, worker/project/plot facts, regional DEC, Power Core availability, definitions and up to 200 owner deeds for verified candidate locations. At most 100 matching cards; a larger selection is refused. Returns an estimator-ready baseline only when identity and backend production checks agree, candidate eligibility caveats, verified locations where returned, and per-source freshness. Reads are not atomic. Missing, cooling-down or unsupported cards are not presented as ready to stake. No stake changes are performed; Land stake changes remain scoped per plot.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
playerYes
plot_idNo
deed_uidNo
candidate_uidsNo
candidate_card_detail_idsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.0.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / candidate_card_detail_ids / items / maximum
      Added value: +9007199254740991
    • changedInput schema / properties / plot_id / anyOf
      Previous value: -[
-  {
-    "minimum": 1,
-    "type": "integer"
-  },
-  {
-    "type": "string"
-  }
-]New value: +[
+  {
+    "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+    "minimum": 1,
+    "type": "integer"
+  },
+  {
+    "type": "string"
+  }
+]
  2. First observedv0.0.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite strong readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral disclosure: reads are not atomic, no stake changes are performed, missing/cooling-down/unsupported cards are not presented as ready, at most ten logical GETs, no automatic pagination, and at most 100 matching cards with refusal beyond that. This far exceeds what annotations alone convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a long paragraph but almost every sentence adds load-bearing detail about limits, freshness, and safety. Purpose is front-loaded, and operational constraints are grouped logically. Minor redundancy exists around 'no stake changes' and 'Land stake changes remain scoped', but overall it earns its length.

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 parameter-rich snapshot tool with no output schema, the description covers input requirements, invocation prerequisites, return conditions, and exclusions. The exact shape of the 'estimator-ready baseline' is not specified, but enough is disclosed for an agent to select and call the tool correctly and to route its output toward land_lineup_estimate.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description carries the burden for parameters. It explains plot_id/deed_uid exclusivity, distinguishes candidate_uids from candidate_card_detail_ids, and documents limits and inclusion rules. The 'player' parameter itself receives no explicit semantic explanation beyond its name and schema constraints, which is the main gap.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Gather an explicit player's current Grain/Wood/Stone/Iron plot and selected candidate cards.' It clearly identifies this as the input-snapshot step for land_lineup_estimate, distinguishing it from the estimator sibling and other land tools.

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?

The description gives explicit usage constraints: supply exactly one plot_id or deed_uid, select up to ten card detail IDs or twenty UIDs, and notes that current workers are always included. It names the intended downstream consumer but does not explicitly state when to avoid this tool or use a different sibling, so it falls short of full alternative routing.

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