Skip to main content
Glama
Silverkazimi

splinterlands-mcp

by Silverkazimi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

land_resources_titles_assigned

List public title-assignment rows for a given title, showing player, created date, avatar, and league details. Use it to verify which players are assigned a specific title.

Instructions

List the public title-assignment rows the upstream returns for one title, as GET /land/resources/titles/assigned?title= returns them. The title is a query parameter. A successful response is {status, data}, where data is an array of rows carrying title, player, created_date, avatar_id, league and modern_league. The title, player and created_date fields are strings or a timestamp string, and avatar_id, league and modern_league are JSON numbers; this server returns them unchanged. Warden and warden both succeeded. WARDEN returned HTTP 500, the same response as a nonexistent title and as a missing title parameter. A 500 does not establish whether the title exists. This route is not generally case-insensitive: two casings were observed to work and one failed. This tool sends the argument's case exactly as supplied and does not normalise it, because normalising toward an untested form could turn a working call into a 500. This tool reports the rows returned by the upstream and nothing else.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.0

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description is exceptionally transparent: it discloses that the tool sends the argument's case exactly as supplied without normalization, notes that a 500 does not establish whether the title exists, and specifies the response structure and field types. This far exceeds the bare schema and compensates for the absence of annotations.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is verbose, including detailed test observations about Warden and specific casing outcomes. While the opening sentence clearly states purpose, the lengthy edge-case discussion could be condensed. It is structured but not concise.

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?

Given a single parameter, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the response format, field types, error semantics, and case-handling behavior. It provides everything an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly, though it could explicitly state whether the title is required.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, the description must carry the semantic load. It clarifies that 'title' is a query parameter, explains the case sensitivity (two casings work, one fails), and warns that normalizing case could break calls. This adds meaning beyond the simple string type, though it omits an explicit 'required' note.

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 clearly states 'List the public title-assignment rows the upstream returns for one title' and references the exact endpoint, making the purpose specific and unambiguous. It emphasizes 'for one title', distinguishing it from sibling tools like land_resources_titles that likely list all titles.

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 explains how to call the tool (passing title as a query parameter) but provides no guidance on when to choose this tool over alternatives such as land_resources_titles. There is no mention of conditions or exclusions, leaving the agent to infer use cases.

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