Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Cavalera Forge MCP

Cavalera Forge MCP

by jbillochon
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

Refinery yields

refinery_yields
Read-onlyIdempotent

Retrieve yield bonuses or penalties for every refinery processing a given material, ranked best first, to choose where to refine for higher output.

Instructions

Yield bonus or malus of every refinery for a material, best first.

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": {
      "material": "<material>"
    },
    "name": "refinery_yields"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
materialYesRefined material, e.g. 'Quantainium'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare this as a read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world lookup. The description adds useful behavioral context by stating that results cover every refinery and are ordered best first, but it does not describe return format or data freshness.

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?

One short sentence with no filler; the material scope and sort order are front-loaded.

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

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple one-parameter read-only lookup with rich annotations, the description adequately conveys the returned concept: yield bonuses/maluses for every refinery, sorted best first. It could say more about the exact return fields, but the essential behavior is present.

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?

The single material parameter has 100% schema description coverage, including an example. The description's 'for a material' adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 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 clearly states the resource and scope: refinery yield bonuses/maluses for a given material, sorted best first. It does not explicitly differentiate this from sibling game-data tools such as product_recipe or mineral_info, 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.

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied by the phrase 'for a material' and the 'best first' ordering, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no exclusions, and no named alternative among the many sibling tools.

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