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

battle-training-mcp

by ciperx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_match

Retrieve a single match by ID to review per-side combat stats, including fires, hits, damage, refused orders, and sandbox health.

Instructions

One match with per-side stats: fires, hits, damage, refused orders, sandbox health.

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": {
      "id": "<id>"
    },
    "name": "get_match"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. 'Get' implies a read-only lookup and the stat list gives useful substance about what comes back, but nothing is said about behavior for unknown ids, permissions, or whether stats are live or final.

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?

One short front-loaded sentence with zero filler; the scope ('One match') leads and the payload description follows immediately.

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 stat enumeration does meaningful work describing returns, and there are no annotations to lean on. But the only required input is left undefined, which is the main thing an agent needs to call it correctly.

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 coverage is 0% and the single required parameter 'id' is completely unexplained — no format, no indication it is a match id sourced from list_matches, no error semantics for a bad id. The description does not compensate for the schema gap.

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 resource and scope: a single match, with an explicit enumeration of the per-side stats returned (fires, hits, damage, refused orders, sandbox health). It implicitly contrasts with list_matches, though it never names that sibling.

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 on when to use this versus list_matches, or where a match id comes from. Usage is only inferable from the name and the singular 'One match' phrasing.

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