Skip to main content
Glama
Silverkazimi

splinterlands-mcp

by Silverkazimi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

land_resources_titles

Retrieve land-title records for a Splinterlands player. Provide a player name to get title rows with created dates, or an empty array if none exist.

Instructions

List the public land-title rows the upstream returns for one player, as GET /land/resources/titles?player= returns them. The player is a query parameter. A successful response is {status, data}, where data is an array of rows carrying title, player and created_date; title and player are strings and created_date is a timestamp string, and this server returns them unchanged. Omitting player returned HTTP 400. An unknown player returned HTTP 200 with data:[], an honest empty result. This route is well-behaved: a missing player is rejected with HTTP 400 and an unknown player gives an empty array. This tool reports the title rows returned by the upstream and nothing else.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
playerYes

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

A3.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It clearly discloses that missing player returns HTTP 400, unknown player returns HTTP 200 with an empty array, and that response rows are returned unchanged. It does not mention auth, rate limits, or pagination, but for a simple public read endpoint the key behaviors are covered.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is repetitive and longer than necessary. It states the missing-player HTTP 400 behavior twice and the unknown-player empty-result behavior twice, and the final sentence mostly restates the first sentence. It is front-loaded but wastes space on redundant assurances like 'This route is well-behaved'.

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 simple one-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers the response shape, field types, error statuses, and pass-through nature. It lacks explicit pagination or limit details, but the endpoint appears intentionally minimal and the core calling contract is sufficiently defined.

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 only documents the player parameter as a non-empty string with 0% schema description coverage. The description compensates by explaining that player is a query parameter and by detailing the distinct outcomes for missing and unknown player values, which is useful behavioral semantics beyond the bare 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 and resource: 'List the public land-title rows the upstream returns for one player'. It also distinguishes this tool from related siblings by adding 'and nothing else', clarifying it is a thin pass-through and not, for example, land_resources_titles_assigned.

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?

There is no guidance about when to choose this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. The description explains the HTTP behavior of the endpoint but does not mention any sibling tool or selection context, leaving the agent to infer usage from the name alone.

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