Test combat tactics against a persistent sparring bot with zero energy penalty and zero Elo loss, providing a risk-free environment for honing strategies.
Challenge Muse, the persistent house sparring bot. Zero energy penalty and zero Elo loss; perfect for testing tactics.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the two key behavioral consequences—no energy penalty and no Elo loss—making the operation safe and low-stakes. It does not describe output or termination, but for a zero-parameter spar command, the disclosed effects cover the main risk.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
Two sentences with no filler; the key facts are front-loaded in the first sentence. Every clause adds selection-relevant information.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description covers who, what, cost, and best use. It stops short of saying what the caller receives after the challenge, but this is minor for a no-argument command.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool has no parameters, so the baseline is 4. The description does not need to add parameter meaning, and there is no schema-coverage gap to compensate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Identifies the exact action ('Challenge Muse') and the resource ('persistent house sparring bot'), which clearly separates it from competitive match/fight siblings. The phrase 'sparring bot' conveys it is a practice opponent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
States an explicit use case: testing tactics with zero costs and zero risk. It does not name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the practice-vs-competition contrast with sibling names is implicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.