Skip to main content
Glama

Unmet needs

unmet_needs

Reveal the top unmet dwarf needs causing fort stress, ranked by affected dwarves, with starvation severity and total count. Diagnose unhappiness at a glance.

Instructions

Why the fort is stressed: the dwarven needs system aggregated across all citizens. Returns the top unmet needs (e.g. prayer, drink, socializing) ranked by how many dwarves are distracted, each with the worst focus level (how starved the need is), plus how many dwarves have at least one unmet need. Reading worst_focus: it is DF's raw focus_level — 0 is neutral, positive means recently satisfied (caps at 400), negative means starved. There is NO single floor: the minimum is -16320 x that dwarf's need_level for that need, so a level-1 need bottoms out at -16320, a level-2 need at -32640, a level-5 need at -81600. An identical worst_focus repeating across several needs is therefore normal — those needs share a need_level and are all fully starved — not a clamp or a quantization artifact; and a larger magnitude on one need does not by itself mean it is more starved than another, since the two may have different floors. Compare against the floor, not against zero. Reports which needs are unmet, not how to fix them (look that up or reason from the need type). Complements fort_status happiness. 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 explains the meaning of worst_focus, the exact floor calculation (-16320 × need_level), that identical values are normal, how to compare against floors, and the error response when no fort is loaded. This prevents misinterpretation and is highly transparent.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

Although lengthy, every sentence is purposeful: it front-loads the purpose, then details necessary interpretation details (floors, clamps, comparative semantics), and ends with scope and error handling. The structure is logical and free of 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?

The tool is a read-only lookup with no inputs, no annotations, and no output schema. The description fully explains what is returned, how to interpret the numbers, and the error case, making it completely adequate for correct use.

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 0 parameters, so the schema is fully covered and description does not need to elaborate. The description provides abundant context about the return value semantics instead, which is the relevant behavioral information for this tool.

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 returns aggregate unmet needs across all citizens, with a specific verb ('Returns') and resource ('dwarven needs system'). It distinguishes itself from related tools by noting it complements fort_status happiness and explicitly says it reports which needs are unmet, not how to fix them.

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 context ('Why the fort is stressed') and clarifies that it complements fort_status happiness, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it. It does say it reports unmet needs rather than fixes, implying its scope.

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