Inspect a Crowns war by UUID to see both sides, battle windows, strikes, participants, and readiness. Reveals enemy committed armies through watchtowers for your side.
Inspect one war: both sides, windows, strikes so far, participants (committed_army visible only for YOUR side - read the enemy's through watchtowers), readiness, end state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| war_id | Yes | UUID of the war | |
| api_key | Yes | Your Crowns API key |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description discloses a behavioral nuance: 'committed_army visible only for YOUR side - read the enemy's through watchtowers.' This goes beyond a simple getter and informs about data visibility restrictions. No annotations exist, so this transparency is valuable.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, concise sentence that lists key return items without unnecessary detail. It is well-structured and easy to parse, providing clear information in a compact format.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Without an output schema, the description serves as the primary source for expected return data. It enumerates major components (both sides, windows, strikes, participants, readiness, end state) and adds nuance about participant visibility. It does not mention error handling or edge cases but covers the essential output comprehensively.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The schema already provides clear descriptions for both parameters (war_id: 'UUID of the war', api_key: 'Your Crowns API key'). The description adds no additional parameter context, and with 100% schema coverage, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Inspect war' and enumerates the specific data returned (both sides, windows, strikes, participants, readiness, end state). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like get_wars (list) and get_war_offers by focusing on a single war's details.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage for retrieving details of a specific war but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives. It lacks explicit conditions or comparisons, though the sibling list suggests a distinct role. No direct 'use when' guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.