Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
supercell-mcp

supercell-mcp

by brettadams0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

Get a player's recent battles

cr_get_player_battlelog

Retrieve recent battle history for a Clash Royale player using their player tag.

Instructions

Recent battle history for a player.

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": {
      "tag": "<tag>"
    },
    "name": "cr_get_player_battlelog"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tagYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

D1.8/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, and the description adds no behavioral details such as authentication requirements, data freshness, error conditions, or rate limits. The agent gains no insight beyond the tool's name.

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

Conciseness2/5

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

The description is extremely brief, which risks under-specification. While it avoids verbosity, it sacrifices clarity and completeness. A single phrase is insufficient for a tool with a parameter.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given the lack of output schema, missing parameter details, and many sibling tools, the description fails to provide sufficient context. It does not specify the game (Clash Royale) or what constitutes 'recent', leaving the agent poorly informed.

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?

The schema has 0% description coverage, and the tool description does not explain the 'tag' parameter. The agent is left to guess the format (e.g., player tag with '#') and required conventions, increasing misuse risk.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'Recent battle history for a player.' specifies the resource (battle history) and implies retrieval, but it is vague and does not differentiate from sibling tools like cr_get_player. The verb is implicit from the tool name, and the scope is unclear.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., cr_get_player, bs_get_player_battlelog). There is no context on prerequisites or typical use cases.

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