Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
掌锤公开查询 MCP

掌锤公开查询 MCP

by Vper496
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_faction_detachments

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query a faction's detachments to compare usage and raw or weighted win rates, with sortable, 20-item paginated results.

Instructions

查询单分遣队的出场率及原始/加权胜率；明确多选分别计入成员，先排序后按每页20项返回。

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "faction_id": "<faction_id>"
    },
    "name": "get_faction_detachments"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pageNo
sortNousage
formatNoindividual
date_toNo
date_fromNo
directionNodesc
mfm_groupNo
faction_idYes
release_idNo
dataset_revisionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world behavior, so the bar is low. The description adds genuine non-obvious behavior: multi-select entries are counted separately per member, and results are sorted before pagination with a fixed page size of 20 — useful semantics an agent cannot infer from annotations alone.

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?

A single dense sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose before the behavioral caveats. Slightly compact given the amount of information it tries to cover, but nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 10-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description should explain the key filters (format, mfm_group, release_id, date range). It covers only sorting and pagination, leaving most invocation decisions unsupported.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 10 parameters. The description explains only sorting-before-pagination and page size (20 items), leaving faction_id, format, mfm_group, release_id, dataset_revision, date ranges, and direction entirely undocumented beyond their names and enums.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: query a faction's detachment usage rate plus raw and weighted win rates. It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like get_faction_units or get_faction_analysis, though it doesn't name the alternatives explicitly.

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 never says when to use this tool versus get_faction_units, get_faction_analysis, or get_matchups. It only implies usage by describing the returned metrics; there are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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