Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ygopro-mcp

ygopro-mcp

by darknessWONG
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

control_health

Checks the health of the Yu-Gi-Oh! control layer so LLM agents can confirm duel action routing is responsive before sending plays.

Instructions

Health check of the control layer.

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": "control_health"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and provides almost none. It does not state that the call is read-only, what a healthy versus unhealthy result looks like, whether it can fail or time out, or what the caller should do with the result. Only the word "check" hints at a non-mutating operation.

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 short sentence with no filler, front-loading the core purpose. Nothing could be trimmed, though more content would have been welcome given the gaps elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

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 about this tool's behavior, and it does not describe what the health check returns or how to interpret it. For a diagnostic tool, the return semantics are the essential information and they are entirely absent.

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 and the baseline of 4 applies. No parameter confusion is possible 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 description names a specific operation ("health check") and a target ("the control layer"), so the agent knows this is a diagnostic tool rather than an action tool like control_act or control_wait_prompt. However, "control layer" is never defined and the description does not say what aspect of health is measured, leaving the purpose only partially resolved.

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 versus the many sibling control_* tools, no mention of prerequisites, and no indication of whether this should be used proactively or only after a failure. The agent must infer that this is a pre-flight or diagnostic check.

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