battle-training-mcp

create_bot

Registers a bot name under your account for battle.training; requires a BT_API_KEY and accepts optional agent/model details.

Instructions

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": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "create_bot"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`agent`	No
`model`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Oct 30, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

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 does add real value by disclosing the BT_API_KEY auth requirement and implying a mutation via "register." It does not say what happens on a duplicate bot name, whether the call is idempotent, or whether registration is reversible, which for an unannotated write tool 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

A single short sentence with the auth prerequisite front-loaded after the core action. Efficient, though its brevity is partly under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 2 of 3 parameters unexplained. For a creation/mutation tool in a plugin ecosystem with differing sibling operations, the description does not give enough for confident invocation.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% and the description only glosses the required name field ("bot name"); the optional agent and model parameters are undocumented in both schema and description. An agent would have to guess what agent/model values are accepted.

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?

"Register a bot name under your account" pairs a specific verb (register) with a specific resource (bot name) and scope (your account). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like get_bot (read) and upload_version (artifact upload), though it never explicitly distinguishes them.

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 parenthetical prerequisite (requires BT_API_KEY) gives some invocation context, and the name suggests this is the first step before upload_version. But there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative for related operations.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server