castle-clash-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

build_score

Compare builds for a hero by calculating effective stats, EHP tankiness, and offense score from verified combat math.

Instructions

Grade a build by numbers without a fight: effective stats plus EHP (tankiness) and an offense score (ATK x attacks/sec x average crit factor), all from the verified combat math. loadout_json is the same shape hero_stats_calc takes. Use it to compare builds on one hero.

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": {
      "hero": "<hero>"
    },
    "name": "build_score"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`evo`	No
`hero`	Yes
`level`	No
`stars`	No
`talent`	No
`talent_lvl`	No
`loadout_json`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full behavioral burden and largely meets it: it clarifies this is a non-fight calculation ('without a fight'), gives the offense formula, and cites 'verified combat math' as credibility. It doesn't explicitly state read-only/no-side-effect behavior, but pure computation is strongly implied.

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?

Two sentences deliver the core purpose, output metrics, formula, data-source caveat, and a shape-sharing hint. Every clause earns its place and the content is front-loaded.

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?

The definition covers what is computed and the intended comparison use case, but with no output schema and seven parameters it leaves gaps: the range/meaning of the 'grade', the exact effective stats returned, and the semantics of most parameters are missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description needed to explain the parameters. It only explains that loadout_json has the same shape hero_stats_calc accepts; hero, evo, level, stars, talent, and talent_lvl are left without additional meaning.

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 opens with a specific verb ('Grade a build') and names exact outputs: effective stats, EHP, and an offense score formula. It also differentiates from fight/simulation siblings by saying 'without a fight' and narrows scope to 'compare builds on one hero.'

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?

It explicitly states the intended use case: comparing builds on one hero. It also gives a shape-sharing hint with hero_stats_calc, but it doesn't name the tools this should replace or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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