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

battle-training-mcp

by ciperx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

get_starter

Retrieves a working JavaScript starter controller to copy and improve, providing a base for building and testing bots in the battle.training tank arena.

Instructions

A working JavaScript starter controller to copy and improve.

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_starter"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only fetch of sample code, but says nothing about the response shape, whether the code is language/framework-version specific, or any prerequisites such as authentication, which matters for an agent deciding whether it can use the output directly.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. Everything present is relevant, and nothing is buried.

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 and no annotations, the description is the only source of information, and it omits the return format that an agent needs in order to use the result. For a zero-parameter convenience tool the scope is small enough that this is a moderate rather than fatal gap, but the unresolved overlap with get_started leaves real ambiguity.

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 disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description doesn't misrepresent any parameter behavior.

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 names a concrete artifact (a working JavaScript starter controller) that is meant to be copied, so the resource is identifiable. However, it never states the verb/return mechanic (does it return code text, a file, or a URL?) and it does nothing to distinguish itself from the near-identically named sibling get_started, which an agent could easily pick by mistake.

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 call this instead of get_started, get_rules, or get_ladder. The only hint is the phrase 'to copy and improve,' which implies a bootstrapping use case but states no 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