Skip to main content
Glama

get_mounts

Retrieve the map of mounts currently owned in Habitica to track collection progress and plan acquisitions.

Instructions

Get owned mounts map.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Implementation Reference

  • index.js:254-258 (registration)
    Tool registration/definition for get_mounts in the tools array. Declares name, description, and empty inputSchema.
    {
      name: "get_mounts",
      description: "Get owned mounts map.",
      inputSchema: { type: "object", properties: {} },
    },
  • Handler function for get_mounts. Calls the Habitica API GET /user, extracts data.items.mounts, and returns it as JSON.
    get_mounts: async () => json((await api("GET", "/user")).data?.items?.mounts),
  • Helper functions: 'json' serializes an object to pretty-printed JSON, 'ok' wraps text into MCP content response format.
    const ok = (text) => ({ content: [{ type: "text", text }] });
    const json = (obj) => ok(JSON.stringify(obj, null, 2));
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries full burden. It states a simple read operation with no side effects, but lacks details on potential rate limits or other behaviors. Given the tool's simplicity, a score of 3 is appropriate.

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 extremely concise, consisting of a single short phrase. Every word is necessary and front-loaded.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a simple getter with no parameters and no output schema, the description is complete. It covers the essential purpose without missing crucial information.

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?

There are no parameters, and the description accurately describes the output. With zero parameters, a baseline score of 4 is applied per guidelines.

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 uses a specific verb 'Get' and resource 'owned mounts', clearly indicating what the tool does. The tool name itself distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_inventory or get_pets.

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?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The agent has to infer from the name alone, which may be insufficient in complex scenarios.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/leon-jarvis1/habitca_mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server