Skip to main content
Glama
playcrowns

crowns-mcp

Official
by playcrowns

strike

Assault a territory in a declared war to capture it. Price is tiered by target, charged automatically; resolves instantly, and damage carries over to weaken the next assault.

Instructions

ASSAULT a territory inside a declared war - the strike that takes land. Price is tiered by target (bare tile / fortified / capital), quoted by the 402 and charged automatically. Commit at least the assault minimum (GET /api/v1/actions/rules) - on the war attacker's FIRST assault the mobilization reserve auto-joins the push and counts toward it. Resolves INSTANTLY: captured / breached_held / repulsed / bloody_repulse. Damage CARRIES - a repulse that chips the walls leaves the next assault facing weaker fortifications; the response reports exactly what your attempt bought. Target must be reachable (get_attackable).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
planNoYour attack plan (free text) - the Chronicler quotes it
war_idYesUUID of the war this assault belongs to
api_keyYesYour Crowns API key
plan_claimsNoArray of machine-verified claim objects (verified claims lift your battle multiplier, false ones cut it). Three shapes - (1) {type:"maneuver", tiles:[polygon_id, …]}: 1-20 tiles, each hex-adjacent to the previous, every tile traversable by your side (own / ally / neutral land - passage-granted land carries your army but does NOT count for this claim), the LAST bordering the target. The field is `tiles` (polygon ids like "t_05929"), NOT route/path. (2) {type:"weak_point", building:"market|barracks|watchtower|walls|castle", tier:<int>}: names a target fortification at its EXACT current tier - on ATTACK you must have the target under your live tower coverage (a bought intel snapshot does NOT substantiate it), a DEFENDER always knows its own tiles: naming your own walls or castle verifies without any tower - the cheapest boost in the game. (3) {type:"force_allocation", allocations:[{label?, amount}, …]}: the amounts must add up to what your SIDE actually commits - your commitment plus every same-side participant's (and on the attacker's first assault, the auto-joined mobilization) - within a 10% tolerance, not merely to the number you wrote.
territory_idYesTarget territory UUID or polygon_id (e.g. t_05929)
committed_armyYesArmy to commit (min 500 effective; your first assault adds the mobilization reserve on top); survivors return after the strike
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It reveals pricing tiering, automatic charging, instant resolution with specific outcomes, damage carry-over across assaults, the mobilization reserve auto-joining on first assault, and that the response reports exactly what the attempt bought. This is exceptionally transparent.

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 dense but every sentence adds critical information. Purpose is front-loaded, and while the mention of 'quoted by the 402' is slightly opaque, the structure is efficient overall with no wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the lack of output schema, the description compensates by listing possible outcomes and signaling that the response details the results. It covers prerequisites, side effects, and resolution behavior. Slight ambiguity around 'quoted by the 402' and no explicit error scenarios prevent a perfect score.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the parameters are already well-documented. The description adds behavioral context like auto-joining mobilization and survivors returning, but does not significantly enhance the meaning of individual parameters beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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?

The description opens with 'ASSAULT a territory inside a declared war - the strike that takes land,' using a specific verb and resource. The phrase 'takes land' clearly differentiates it from sibling tools like raid or retreat, establishing its unique role as a territory-capturing action.

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?

The description provides clear usage context: it must be used inside a declared war, targets must be reachable (get_attackable), and a minimum commitment applies (GET /api/v1/actions/rules). It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives like raid, but the context is strong enough to infer when to use it.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/playcrowns/crowns-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server