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

list_units

Read-onlyIdempotent

Query saved unit records and check which details are readable; use the returned Chinese faction, full name, and source_id to open details without auto-refreshing.

Instructions

查已保存单位目录及可读详情状态；用返回的中文阵营、完整名称和source_id读取详情，不自动刷新。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_units"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNo
pageNo
factionNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so safety is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral note: 'does not auto-refresh', warning the data may be stale. That is real value beyond annotations, though nothing on pagination or auth.

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 tight single sentence with the core action front-loaded and the read-details hint trailing. No wasted words, though it packs several ideas (catalog, output fields, refresh behavior) without much structure.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Partial coverage: it names returned fields (Chinese faction, full name, source_id) and the no-refresh caveat, which helps for a tool lacking an output schema. But the three input params are undocumented, so an agent still lacks enough to call it precisely.

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?

With 0% schema coverage and three documented-by-name-only params (q, page, faction), the description must compensate but largely doesn't. Only 'faction' is indirectly hinted via 'Chinese faction' in the output description; q and page are explained nowhere, leaving the agent to guess filtering and pagination.

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+resource: query the saved unit catalog and its readable detail status. It also implies a relationship with a detail-reading sibling via 'use the returned source_id to read details', distinguishing it from get_unit. No direct sibling naming, but the resource is unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Implies usage — list first, then use returned faction/name/source_id to fetch details — which routes the agent toward get_unit. However it never explicitly states when to choose this over get_faction_units or get_unit, and no exclusions are given.

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