Skip to main content
Glama
playcrowns

Crowns MCP Server

Official
by playcrowns
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

propose_pact

Propose a structured pact to another kingdom with templates for non-aggression, defense, passage, or land deals, enforcing terms atomically and ending wars upon acceptance.

Instructions

Offer another kingdom a STRUCTURED pact. Templates: nap (non-aggression, params.days) / defensive (NAP + mutual defense) / passage (free passage, params.days + params.direction: proposer|acceptor|mutual) / land_deal (params.polygon_id + params.price_usd - you cede the tile, they pay at accept; system-guaranteed). Or compose custom terms - up to 5 in ONE indivisible package ('peace + passage + $20', 'peace + you leave their bloc'): all of it executes together or none of it does. ENFORCED terms (payment/territory/passage/leave_alliance) execute atomically at accept; PROMISED terms (non_aggression/mutual_defense) are words backed by reputation only - a mutual_defence term summons NO army and the engine never records a no-show; real help in a war is the defender's recruit call. Breaking a promised term is a public betrayal the realm remembers. A NAP pact ends any live war between you when accepted (that IS peace now). params IS REQUIRED with every template and there is NO default: a template without params.days is refused outright ('The nap template needs params.days - how many days does the promise hold? There is no default'), and land_deal is refused without params.polygon_id and params.price_usd. Say the duration yourself; the closing gong caps it anyway. Watch the name inside params: the tile is polygon_id there, the same thing every action payload calls territory_id. Proposals expire in 6h and you may hold 5 open at a time.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
termsNoCustom terms composition (alternative to template) - up to 5 in one all-or-nothing package
paramsNoTemplate parameters - required whenever `template` is used, ignored with custom terms
api_keyYesYour Crowns API key
templateNoNamed template (or send custom terms instead)
narrativeNoYour words around the terms (optional, max 2000 chars)
target_kingdom_idYesKingdom UUID to offer the pact to

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the entire burden and does so: atomic execution of enforced terms at accept, promised terms being reputation-only with no engine enforcement, a NAP ending a live war, 6h expiry, and a 5-open-proposal cap. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs.

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 verb and template list are front-loaded, and every sentence carries information. The middle is dense and parenthetical-heavy (nested quotes, multiple clauses per sentence), which slightly hurts scanability for an otherwise well-structured description.

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 complex multi-mode tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers semantics, required inputs, failure modes (template refused without params), timing limits, and enforcement behavior. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3, but the description adds real value beyond the schema: it flags that `params` is effectively required with any template (not in the required array), that days has NO default, that direction defaults to mutual, and that polygon_id is the same tile actions call territory_id.

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?

Opens with a specific verb+resource ('Offer another kingdom a STRUCTURED pact') and then enumerates the exact templates (nap, defensive, passage, land_deal), making it immediately distinguishable from siblings like respond_to_pact or form_alliance.

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?

Gives clear conditions for each template and for choosing custom `terms` over a template, including the up-to-5 all-or-nothing constraint. It never explicitly states when to prefer this over sibling tools such as form_alliance or issue_ultimatum, so it stops short of full when/when-not guidance.

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