Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Cavalera Forge MCP

Cavalera Forge MCP

by jbillochon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Data status

data_status
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check the game version, data freshness, and counts to confirm the crafting, mining, and trading information is current before you rely on it.

Instructions

Game version the data is built for, data freshness, counts.

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": "data_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and openWorld, so the safety profile is covered without the description's help. In exchange the description says nothing about return shape beyond a bare field list, and 'counts' of what is not specified — but with no output schema, the brief field enumeration adds some value.

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?

It is a single short fragment with no wasted words, but it is telegraphic to the point of under-specification — 'counts' is left dangling and the sentence never resolves into a statement of what the tool actually does.

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, no-output-schema status tool the description should fully explain what comes back; it covers version and freshness but leaves 'counts' ambiguous, so an agent cannot predict the response payload.

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; baseline 4 applies.

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 names the specific contents returned — game version the data was built for, data freshness, and counts — which is enough to tell this is a dataset-metadata tool distinct from all the search/info siblings. It lacks an explicit verb, but the resource is unambiguous.

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 sibling tools, no mention of prerequisites, and no stated use case such as verifying data currency before trusting other results. The usage context is only weakly implied.

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