specter-skills

Test an achievement end-to-end

specter_test_achievement

Prove a task fires correctly: fire a trigger event, poll for updates, and check progression or completion. Use after creating a task to ensure it works.

Instructions

Prove a configured task/achievement works: reads the test player's task status, fires the trigger event (with optional params), polls again, and reports whether the task progressed/completed. Use right after creating a task to verify it actually fires.

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": {
      "event": "<event>"
    },
    "name": "specter_test_achievement"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`event`	Yes	The trigger event slug the task listens to
`times`	No	Fire the event N times (for "do X N times" rules)
`params`	No	Event parameters to satisfy the rule, e.g. {"score": 1200}
`taskId`	No	The task slug to focus the report on (otherwise summarises all)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 27, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are present (readOnlyHint=false, etc.) and description adds the polling and reporting behavior. However, it doesn't clarify if the test fires persist or are simulated, which is a minor gap for a testing tool.

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 two sentences, front-loaded with action steps, and includes a usage tip. Every word earns its place.

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?

While the process is explained, the description does not identify the test player or expected output format. Without an output schema, more detail on the report would improve completeness.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description repeats the event parameter's purpose but adds no new detail beyond the schema's descriptions. The overall context adds minor value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: testing an achievement by reading status, firing an event, polling, and reporting progression. It distinguishes from sibling tools like create/delete by being a verification tool.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Description explicitly says 'Use right after creating a task to verify it actually fires,' providing clear timing context. It doesn't mention alternatives or when not to use, but the single-use context is strong.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server