Skip to main content
Glama

Military

military

Assess fort's defense readiness: squads, enlisted soldiers, filled positions, alerts for incomplete uniforms. Reports equipment gaps, ammo, training schedule.

Instructions

The fort's military: number of squads, how many living present dwarves are actually enlisted (soldiers), filled squad positions, and readiness read against hostiles currently on the map (great-danger split out). Each squad also reports: roster[] — one row per FILLED position whose occupant is a LIVING, PRESENT unit (a dead or off-map holder still counts toward filled but is omitted here, so gear sitting on a corpse never generates a false alert) — that soldier's uniform_complete flag, and (only when incomplete) uniform[], aggregated by item type (ARMOR/HELM/PANTS/GLOVES/SHOES/SHIELD/WEAPON/...) into assigned_count (items the uniform calls for — a required-but-never-found item still counts as 1) vs missing_count (of those, how many are not currently worn/wielded — DF's own uniform-unstick logic, or never assigned at all) — this is the tool-API spec's originally-promised "equipment_gaps" (e.g. "8 of them have no armor"), previously unfulfilled; a fully-equipped soldier's uniform[] is empty (uniform_complete says so already) to keep the payload proportional to actual gaps, not fort size. ammo — the squad's configured ammunition specs (item type, target_amount — the squad's shared configured total, NOT per-soldier — and how many are currently assigned) and ammo_items_assigned, the total ammo items currently carried by the squad; training — the active training-schedule month's sleep_mode, uniform_mode, and active_orders (both undefined/empty when the fort has never customized that routine's month). alerts also flags any roster member with an incomplete uniform by name. 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 exceeds expectations. It discloses nuances such as roster excluding dead/off-map units, uniform aggregation logic (assigned vs missing), ammo target being a shared total not per-soldier, training schedule behavior, and an error response when no fort is loaded. This is extensive behavioral transparency.

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 verbose and presented as a single dense paragraph, which can be harder to scan. However, each sentence provides necessary detail and the length is justified by the complexity of the returned data. It is not maximally concise but is appropriately detailed.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully specifies the return structure, including edge cases, error handling, and the meaning of each field. It covers all aspects of military data comprehensively, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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?

There are zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter semantics. According to the rubric, 0 parameters receives a baseline of 4, which is appropriate here since no further detail is required.

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 what the tool does: it returns the fort's military information, enumerating squads, enlisted dwarves, filled positions, readiness, roster details, uniforms, ammo, training, and alerts. It is specific to the military domain and the content distinguishes it from siblings like 'threats' or 'defenses' without needing explicit mention.

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 description provides clear context on what data is returned, making it obvious when to use the tool. However, it does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, so it falls short of the highest rating. For example, it doesn't say 'for threats use threats tool'.

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