Skip to main content
Glama
Silverkazimi

splinterlands-mcp

by Silverkazimi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

land_resources_production_region_harvestable

Fetch harvestable resource rows for one player and region, returning claimable amounts and required grain, wood, stone, and iron.

Instructions

List the harvestable resource rows the upstream returns for one account and one land region, as GET /land/resources/production/region/harvestable returns them. A successful response is {status, data}, where data is an array of rows carrying amount_claimable, grain_required_for_food, wood_required, stone_required, iron_required and token_symbol. 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 returned HTTP 400 with Invalid parameters passed when either player or region_uid was missing, and this tool requires both before making the request. A fake player or region_uid returned data:[], a successful empty answer. This tool reports the rows the upstream returned and nothing else.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
playerYes
region_uidYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and is exceptionally transparent: it documents the response shape, the exact numeric wire-type preservation, the HTTP 400 behavior for missing parameters, and the empty-array behavior for fake parameters. It also explicitly states that the tool reports only what the upstream returned. There is no contradiction with annotations because none are present.

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 front-loaded with purpose and scope, and nearly every sentence adds necessary operational context. It is somewhat repetitive around 'upstream returned' and the final sentence restates the tool's limitation, but there is no filler and the structure is logically ordered.

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 two-parameter read tool with no output schema and no annotations, this description is complete: it covers the endpoint, response structure, field list, numeric fidelity, parameter requirements, error behavior, and empty-data behavior. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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 provides only names and empty-string constraints, so the description must carry the meaning. It does so by identifying player as 'one account' and region_uid as 'one land region', and by explaining what happens when either is missing or fake. It stops short of giving concrete value formats or examples, but for two simple string parameters this is adequate compensation.

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, 'List', and names the exact resource: harvestable resource rows for one account and one land region. It also cites the exact upstream GET path, so the tool's scope is unambiguous and it is clearly distinguishable from the many sibling land_resources 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?

It clearly defines the calling context: one account, one land region, with both player and region_uid required before the request is made. It does not explicitly name alternatives or give when-not-to-use conditions, but it does not leave the basic usage context to inference.

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