castle-clash-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

system_lookup

Retrieve complete per-level and per-star data for any Castle Clash system entry, such as Divine Roots or Dragon Ring, using its English name.

Instructions

One entry from a system by English name, with its full per-level/per-star data (e.g. system_lookup('holy','Divine Roots'), ('crest','Revive Crest I'), ('gear','Dragon Ring')).

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": {
      "system": "<system>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "system_lookup"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`system`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 5, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the tool returns exactly one entry and includes full per-level/per-star data, which is useful. However, it does not mention exact-name matching, error behavior, output format, or whether partial names are accepted.

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 one compact sentence with three illustrative examples. It is front-loaded, contains no filler, and the examples add meaningful context without bloating the text.

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 description is sufficient to attempt a call when the system and English name are known, but it leaves gaps around the full set of valid systems and how this tool relates to specialized siblings. Given no output schema or annotations, more context would improve reliable tool selection.

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 schema has no parameter descriptions, so the examples provide the main semantic guidance: system appears to be a category like 'holy', 'crest', or 'gear', and name is the English entry name. This helps but does not fully define accepted system values or name syntax.

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 states a clear lookup operation: one entry from a system by English name, returning full per-level/per-star data. The examples make the resource type concrete, though it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like get_crest or get_equipment.

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 explicit guidance about when to use system_lookup versus alternatives. Examples show call shape, but the description does not explain when this generic lookup is preferable to specialized sibling tools or what kinds of names/systems are valid.

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