Skip to main content
Glama
Silverkazimi

splinterlands-mcp

by Silverkazimi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

land_projects_requirements

Retrieve upstream work requirement rows for a single Splinterlands Land deed by plot ID or deed UID, including projected hours and projected end dates without interpreting them as a schedule.

Instructions

List the work requirement rows the upstream reports for one deed uid. Some deeds return no rows at all. A row's projected hours and projected end are the upstream's own values, and they can be far in the future: this repository observed rows carrying a projected end roughly five thousand years ahead. This server does not interpret those values and does not treat them as a schedule. Supply exactly one plot_id (numeric or display label) or deed_uid; the original UID spelling is also accepted. Reference resolution may add one verified deed GET before the target GET, with a hard two-request limit. Populated resolved results include all three plot identities and resolution freshness.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
plot_idNo
deed_uidNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.2
    • 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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that some deeds return no rows, warns that projected values are upstream's own and can be far in the future and are not interpreted as a schedule, and notes the potential extra verified deed GET with a hard two-request limit. It also describes output contents (plot identities and resolution freshness). This is substantive behavioral disclosure.

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 single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the main purpose, then covers caveats, parameter usage, and additional behavior. Each sentence contributes information with minimal redundancy, though the statement about 'original UID spelling' could be seen as minor extra detail.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and 0% parameter description coverage, the description is fairly complete. It covers purpose, parameter constraints, data quality caveats, and some output characteristics. It lacks explicit error handling or pagination info, but for a list endpoint with two identifiers, it provides sufficient guidance for correct invocation.

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 must compensate. It clarifies that exactly one of plot_id or deed_uid is required, that plot_id accepts numeric or display label, and that original UID spelling is accepted. This adds meaning beyond the schema's type definitions, though it doesn't define what a 'display label' is.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), resource ('work requirement rows'), and scope ('for one deed uid'). It also clarifies alternative identifiers (plot_id or deed_uid), distinguishing it from sibling tools like land_projects_active or land_projects_history by focusing on requirements rows. The purpose is unambiguous and differentiates from related tools.

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?

The description gives usage constraints (exactly one of plot_id or deed_uid) but does not explicitly compare with alternative tools or state when to prefer this over other land_projects_* endpoints. It lacks exclusions or alternative references, leaving the agent to infer the appropriate context from the tool name and sibling list.

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