Skip to main content
Glama

land_resources_owned

Retrieve resource holdings for a player and resource symbol, returning region name, amount, and timestamps.

Instructions

List the resource-holding rows the upstream returns for one account and one resource, as GET /land/resources/owned returns them. A successful response is {status, data}, where data is an array of rows carrying id, region_uid, player, amount, resource_symbol, created_date, last_updated_date, region_name and region_number. All numeric fields are JSON numbers, and this server returns them unchanged; it does not convert, round, total or compare them, and a change in their wire type would be reported as a malformed response rather than converted silently. The upstream matches resource case-sensitively against its exact symbol. This tool uppercases the resource argument before making the request, but it does not enforce an enum: the observed symbols are not an exhaustive set. An unrecognised symbol returns an empty array that this server cannot distinguish from an account owning none of that resource. A missing player or resource produced data:null at HTTP 200 upstream; data:null therefore indicates a missing parameter in that observation rather than an empty holding, and this tool refuses either missing parameter rather than return that response. An empty array is a successful answer and does not establish that the account exists or that the account owns no resource beyond the request's returned rows. This tool reports the rows the upstream returned and nothing else: it does not infer holdings for symbols or regions the response does not list.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
playerNo
resourceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.0.2
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
  2. First observedv0.0.0

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: numeric wire-type preservation, case-sensitivity and uppercasing, non-enum behavior, empty-array semantics, data:null meaning, missing-parameter refusal, and non-inference of holdings. This is exemplary transparency for a tool with no structured safety hints.

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 long but every sentence earns its place, covering response shape and edge cases that are essential given no output schema or annotations. It is front-loaded with the core action and result format before diving into caveats.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a tool with no annotations, no output schema, and nuanced upstream behavior, the description is remarkably complete. It tells the agent the response structure, field list, error-like signals, empty-array meaning, and explicit non-guarantees, so an agent can invoke it and interpret results correctly without additional context.

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 explains the resource parameter's capitalization behavior, case-sensitivity, and unrecognized-symbol outcome, and it clarifies that missing player/resource arguments are refused. It does not elaborate much on player identity, but the provided semantics go well beyond the minimal 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 states a specific verb ('List'), a concrete resource ('resource-holding rows... for one account and one resource'), and ties it to the exact upstream endpoint. This clearly differentiates it from the many land_resources_* sibling tools without requiring the agent to open their schemas.

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 clearly establishes the tool's scope: it returns exactly what GET /land/resources/owned returns for one account and one resource. It does not name alternatives or state when-not-to-use explicitly, but the context is clear enough to guide simple selection decisions.

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