Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ygopro-mcp

ygopro-mcp

by darknessWONG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

control_act_id

Executes a selected duel action by ID from available control actions, letting agents perform Yu-Gi-Oh! moves through the MCP server.

Instructions

Execute one of the actions returned by control_actions, by id.

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": "control_act_id"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
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 of behavioral disclosure. It says the tool executes an action but reveals nothing about side effects, permissions, reversibility, error behavior, or what happens after execution.

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 one tight sentence with the execution purpose and id source front-loaded. There is no filler or redundant wording.

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 simple one-parameter execution tool, the definition covers the basic prerequisite and id provenance. However, with no annotations and no output schema, it leaves important behavioral and result-shape questions unanswered.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must add meaning for the single id parameter. It usefully says the id comes from actions returned by control_actions, but it does not explain the id format, how to extract it from that response, or whether ids are stable.

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 gives a specific verb (Execute) and resource (one of the actions returned by control_actions) with a clear mechanism (by id). It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling control_act, but the id-based execution path is clear enough to identify the tool's role.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It implies the prerequisite workflow: first obtain actions from control_actions, then execute one by id. However, it gives no explicit when-not guidance and does not clarify when to use this versus sibling control_act.

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