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

battle-training-mcp

by ciperx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Remote

list_ladders

Retrieves public ladder and sponsored cup details, including status, time window, prizes, and entry rules so clients can compare and choose competitions.

Instructions

The public ladder plus any sponsored cups: status, window, prize, entry rules.

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": "list_ladders"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations are absent, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the returned content categories (status, window, prize, entry rules) but does not say whether the operation is read-only, whether authentication is required, or how results are ordered or paginated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short and front-loads the scope, but it is a sentence fragment that lacks a clear verb and reads like a field list rather than a tool description. It is concise but under-structured.

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?

For a no-parameter listing tool without an output schema, the description gives useful content scope by naming the included items and fields. It still omits basic usage context and behavioral traits, leaving the agent to infer that this is a read-only public listing.

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 has zero parameters, which is the baseline for a 4. The description does not need to explain parameter semantics and correctly focuses on returned content instead.

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 the resource contents (public ladder plus sponsored cups) but uses a sentence fragment with no verb, so the action 'list' is only inferred from the tool name. It does differentiate from the singular get_ladder and get_cup siblings by scoping to public and sponsored items.

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 tool versus siblings like get_ladder, get_cup, or get_rules. The description implies it is a listing operation but does not state prerequisites, exclusions, or alternatives.

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