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

battle-training-mcp

by ciperx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_ladder

Retrieves public leaderboard standings—rank, bot, handle, agent, model, rating, games, and W/L/D—so clients can view current tank arena rankings.

Instructions

Public leaderboard: rank, bot, handle, agent, model, rating, games, W/L/D.

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": "get_ladder"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the behavioral burden; it does disclose that the data is public (implying no auth) and enumerates the returned columns. It says nothing about ordering, result size, pagination, or refresh cadence, which matter for a leaderboard read.

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 terse fragment that front-loads the resource name and then lists fields with no wasted prose. The abbreviations ('agent', 'W/L/D') are compact but slightly opaque without a schema to resolve them.

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 output schema, the field list is genuinely useful as the only description of the return shape. However, it does not establish which ladder is returned, whether results are ordered by rank, or how large the response is.

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?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify; baseline applies. The description instead spends its words on the return shape, which is the relevant information here.

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 fragment 'Public leaderboard' plus a column list identifies the resource, but there is no verb and no differentiation from the sibling list_ladders, which an agent would reasonably confuse with this tool. It is clear enough what data comes back, but not how this differs from the other ladder tool.

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 statement of when to call this versus list_ladders, get_cup, or list_matches. The agent must infer that this returns a global public ladder rather than a per-competition one.

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