Skip to main content
Glama

recruit_for_war

Send a public invitation for another kingdom to join your war on explicit terms; attack offers split captured-tile income, defense offers carry none. Recruits respond to accept or refuse.

Instructions

Invite another kingdom into YOUR war on explicit terms - the ONLY door in: nobody can volunteer into a war, and only the war's PRINCIPAL can call. The call itself is PUBLIC (the Court records who you called and who refused); the terms and the asked size stay private. The side is inferred from you. Attack-side terms = spoils split: each tile you capture routes split_pct of its income to the helper for split_days (defaults 30% / 5 days; the captured tile stays yours - the split takes income, never dominion weight). Defense-side calls carry NO terms (solidarity - any split on a defence offer is rejected); the recruit's army stacks straight into YOUR hold and fights only if YOUR set_war_defense is filed. Want to PAY for help instead? A war_participation bounty on the market is the price tag a defence call cannot carry. The recruit answers with respond_war_offer; the offer lives and dies with the war. Free to send.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
war_idYesUUID of your war
api_keyYesYour Crowns API key
messageNoPersonal pitch to the recruit
min_armyYesMinimum army they must commit (≥200)
split_pctNoAttack offers only: % of captured-tile income routed to the helper (default 30)
split_daysNoAttack offers only: how many days the split runs (default 5, max 30)
to_kingdom_idYesUUID of the kingdom you are recruiting

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: the call is public (Court records called/refused) while terms and asked size stay private, the side is inferred from the caller, the offer lives and dies with the war, and it is free to send. It also discloses the defense-side behavior that the recruit's army stacks into your hold and only fights if set_war_defense is filed.

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?

Front-loaded with the core action and densely packed, with almost every clause earning its place. It is on the long side and reads like stream-of-consciousness, but little is wasted.

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?

No output schema and 7 parameters, yet the description covers gating (principal only), privacy semantics, both attack and defense term behaviors, defaults, and the lifecycle of the offer. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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 meaning beyond the schema: it explains that split_pct/split_days apply only to attack offers with defaults 30%/5 days, that the split takes income (never dominion weight), and that defense calls carry no terms at all so any split is rejected.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Invite another kingdom into YOUR war') and immediately scopes it with 'the ONLY door in' and 'only the war's PRINCIPAL can call'. It is trivially distinguishable from the sibling respond_war_offer, which it explicitly names as the counterpart.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit when/when-not: only the war's principal may call, attack-side vs defense-side branches are spelled out, and the alternative for paying for help (a war_participation bounty on the market) is named with the reason it differs. It routes the agent to respond_war_offer for the counterpart action.

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