Skip to main content
Glama

Fluids

fluids

Reveal water and magma facts: aquifer layers, standing/flowing water, ice, magma sea depth, flood exposure, and well water sources. Read-only, fog-of-war-safe data for engineering decisions.

Instructions

Water and magma engineering facts the Earthworks tier (tile_region, geology) does not cover: aquifer layers, standing/flowing water, the magma sea's top, flood exposure at the fort interior, and well water-source depth. Revealed-only, fog-of-war safe — undiscovered tiles never contribute to any field here, the same as tile_region/defenses. aquifer_layers[] groups contiguous revealed z-levels sharing the same light/heavy classification (a mix of both within a run of z-levels reads "mixed") with light_tiles/heavy_tiles tile counts (capped at 50 layers). water_layers[] is a per-z-level aggregate of revealed standing/flowing water tiles (tiles, salt_tiles/fresh_tiles, stagnant_tiles/flowing_tiles, max_depth 1..7) — NOT flood-filled into discrete named bodies (no connectivity analysis is attempted; a single lake spanning two z-levels appears as two rows) — capped at 200 z-levels. ice_layers[] is the frozen peer of water_layers[]: a per-z-level count of revealed ICE tiles (walkable_tiles = ice you can stand on, e.g. a frozen river surface; solid_tiles = ice wall you would have to mine; the two always sum to tiles), capped at 200 z-levels. Frozen water is NOT water as far as the engine is concerned — it has no flow and becomes a solid tile — so a river or brook that freezes over DISAPPEARS from water_layers[] entirely and shows up here instead. A fort reading water_layers: [] alongside a populated ice_layers[] has surface water that exists but is frozen, which is also when wells report source "frozen" and jobs cancel for "No water source". magma_sea is the highest revealed z-level with at least 20 revealed magma tiles (a size floor meant to separate a real magma sea from a small pool/volcano pipe), omitted (not a null field) if no such level is revealed. flood_risk_tiles[] lists revealed FULL-depth (max_depth 7/7) water tiles chebyshev-adjacent to a tile in the same walkable group as any citizen — a flood-EXPOSURE fact (this water sits next to fort-reachable space right now), not a prediction of whether or when it floods anything; capped at 50 (flood_risk_total/flood_risk_truncated track the real count). wells[] extends rooms_and_zones' well read with each well's x/y and the water source found scanning down from it (source: water/magma/frozen/unknown, depth_to_source in z-levels; depth_to_source is absent if the source is unknown or the scan hit a hidden tile first) — capped at 20. scan.complete is false if the fort-wide tile budget was hit before reaching z=0 (scan.last_z_scanned marks where it stopped); every field above is still fog-of-war-safe when that happens, just possibly missing deep layers. Facts only — no dig/pump/floodgate recommendations. Returns {"error":"no fort loaded"} if no fort is active.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

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 excels. It discloses how fields are computed (revealed-only, fog-of-war safe), caps (50 layers, 200 z-levels, 50 flood risk, 20 wells), special cases (frozen water disappears from water_layers, 'mixed' classification, magma sea threshold, flood risk as exposure not prediction), error handling ('no fort loaded'), and the scan.complete flag when the tile budget is hit. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 long but dense with information. Every sentence adds value: each field is explained with meanings, caps, and edge cases. It is structured as a single flowing paragraph, which could be improved with bullet points or section breaks for readability, but given the complexity, the length is justified and there is no fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description is the sole source for return value semantics. It covers every field (aquifer_layers, water_layers, ice_layers, magma_sea, flood_risk_tiles, wells) in detail, including sub-field meanings, caps, and interactions. It also explains the scan.complete flag and error response, making it fully complete for an agent to understand what the tool returns and its limitations.

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 tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 per the rubric. The description doesn't need to explain parameter semantics; it instead thoroughly describes the output fields, which is valuable but outside this dimension. No deduction needed.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Water and magma engineering facts the Earthworks tier (tile_region, geology) does not cover' and enumerates specific resources like aquifer layers, standing/flowing water, magma sea, flood exposure, and well depth. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly naming what it covers beyond tile_region and geology.

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?

The first sentence frames this as the complement to tile_region/geology, indicating when to use it (when you need water/magma engineering facts not covered by those). It also mentions 'Facts only — no dig/pump/floodgate recommendations' as an exclusion. However, it doesn't give explicit scenarios like 'use when planning flood defenses' or contrast with every alternative, but the guidance is clear and useful.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/alexanderolvera/dfhack-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server