Surrender the current duel to concede when continuing is no longer viable.
Surrender the current duel (CTOS_SURRENDER).
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_surrender"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about consequences: whether the surrender is irreversible, whether it counts as a loss or affects rating, whether it ends the match immediately, or what error occurs outside a duel. Only the parenthetical protocol identifier CTOS_SURRENDER hints at the underlying operation.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with the action stated first and the protocol code trailing; nothing is padded or repeated. It is efficient, though the parenthetical code adds little decision-relevant value for an agent.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a state-mutating, zero-parameter action with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits the outcome and preconditions an agent needs before committing: required game state, irreversibility, and result. The reader knows the verb but not the consequences.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes zero parameters (schema coverage 100%, additionalProperties false), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline for a parameterless tool applies. The absence of any arguments means an agent cannot mis-supply input.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and object: 'Surrender the current duel', which is unambiguous on its own and clearly a distinct action from sibling controls such as control_start, control_ready, or control_act. It does not explicitly contrast itself with any sibling, so it stops short of a 5.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'the current duel' implies the precondition that a duel must be in progress, but the description never states when to surrender versus continuing play, nor what happens if no duel is active. Usage is inferable but not spelled out, and no alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.