Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tmw-mcp

tmw-mcp

by bjorn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

attack_range

Override the auto-detected weapon attack range in The Mana World. Set 1 for melee or 2 for scythe/polearm to match your equipped weapon.

Instructions

Override weapon attack range (normally auto-detected from server). 1=melee, 2=scythe/polearm.

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": "attack_range"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rangeNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this overrides server auto-detected behavior, which is real context, but says nothing about persistence (per-session vs permanent), whether it can be reverted, or whether it affects only the next attack. For a state-changing configuration tool this is a meaningful gap.

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?

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by value semantics. Every clause carries information; nothing is redundant.

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?

For a one-parameter tool this covers the essentials, but with no annotations and no output schema the description should say whether the override persists and how it interacts with server auto-detection (e.g., reset behavior). Adequate but visibly incomplete.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% (bare integer with default 1), so the description must compensate — and it does, mapping 1 to melee and 2 to scythe/polearm, meaning far beyond the schema. It falls short of 5 because it never says what other values do or what happens if the field is omitted despite the default.

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 and resource ('Override weapon attack range') and adds the auto-detection context, so the agent knows this is a configuration override rather than an attack action. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling `attack` tool, which a 5 would require.

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?

The phrase 'normally auto-detected from server' implies this should only be used when auto-detection is wrong, which is useful implied usage. However, there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use statement and no named alternative (e.g., leave unset to keep server detection).

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