Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
castle-clash-mcp

castle-clash-mcp

by mmadersbacher
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

tier_list

Get ranked hero tier lists for overall, Guild War, Arena, Dungeons, HBM-LBF, and Blitz modes to compare hero value and plan lineups.

Instructions

Ranked tier list for a mode (overall/Guild War/Arena/Dungeons/HBM-LBF/Blitz).

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": "tier_list"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modeNooverall
limitNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden of explaining behavior. It only says the result is 'ranked,' without describing ordering direction, output format, default behavior, or how the limit parameter affects results. This is minimal but not misleading.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler and includes the key scope upfront. It is appropriately concise, though it could trade a little brevity for more behavioral detail.

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 tool is simple with two optional parameters and no output schema, so the description is close to adequate for basic invocation. However, because there are no annotations and no output schema, the missing details about limit behavior and result format leave the description only minimally complete.

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 must compensate for both parameters. It adds meaning for 'mode' by listing the allowed values, but it says nothing about 'limit' or its behavior. One of the two parameters remains undocumented beyond the raw schema field.

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 that the tool returns a ranked tier list and enumerates the valid modes, which gives a specific resource and scope. It does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools like rank_heroes or list_heroes, so it misses full differentiation.

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?

The description implies when to use the tool (when you need a tier list for one of the listed modes) but provides no guidance on when not to use it or which sibling tools are better alternatives. No exclusions or comparisons are given.

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