Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
battle-training-mcp

battle-training-mcp

by ciperx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_cup

Retrieve a cup's standings, prize assignments, and recent matches by ladder slug to review results and track participants.

Instructions

Standings, prize assignment and recent matches of a cup (ladder slug).

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": {
      "slug": "<slug>"
    },
    "name": "get_cup"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slugYese.g. promotedby-cup-nov-2026

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden, yet it does not state that the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, how many 'recent matches' are returned, or what happens if the slug is invalid. It partially discloses the return categories but leaves key behavioral traits unspecified.

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?

The description is a single, well-formed sentence that front-loads the returned content and ends with the parameter hint. There is no wasted text.

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?

With no annotations and no output schema, the description must carry behavioral context, and it does list the main return categories. However, it omits read-only status, authentication needs, and result limits, so it is only minimally complete for an agent to call the tool confidently.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the single required 'slug' parameter with an example. The description adds only the clarifying phrase 'ladder slug,' which is marginally useful but not substantive beyond the schema.

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?

The description names a specific resource ('cup') and enumerates the content returned: standings, prize assignment, and recent matches. This clearly states what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling tools like get_ladder or list_matches.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use get_cup versus alternatives such as get_ladder, list_matches, or get_match. The parenthetical '(ladder slug)' hints at the parameter's role but does not establish usage conditions or exclusions.

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