Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
tmw-mcp

tmw-mcp

by bjorn
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Remote

buy

Purchase items from a shop after opening the shop list; provide a name ID and optional count.

Instructions

Buy items from shop. Must open buy list first with tmw_shop_buy.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "name_id": "<name_id>"
    },
    "name": "buy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
countNo
name_idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose one important state dependency (the buy list must already be open), but says nothing about currency/zeny deduction, whether the purchase is atomic, what happens on insufficient funds or invalid name_id, or the effect of count.

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?

Two short sentences with the prerequisite front-loaded after the action statement; nothing is wasted. It is terse rather than padded, though it errs toward under-specification.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No annotations, no output schema, and 0% parameter coverage mean the description must do much more. The prerequisite is captured, but the item identifier semantics, quantity behavior, cost, and failure modes are all missing for what is an economically consequential mutation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% for both parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions 'name_id' (an opaque integer identifier) or 'count', leaving the agent to guess what item identifier to pass and how quantity behaves.

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+resource ('Buy items from shop'), so an agent knows what action is performed. However, it does not differentiate itself from the sibling tool 'shop_buy', which the description seemingly references as 'tmw_shop_buy', leaving ambiguity about whether this tool or that one performs the purchase.

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?

It gives a clear precondition: the buy list must be opened first via tmw_shop_buy. That is useful sequencing guidance, but there is no statement of when-not to use this tool or how it relates to the similar 'shop_buy'/'shop_sell' siblings beyond the single prerequisite.

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