warframe-builds-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

record_mechanic

Read-onlyIdempotent

Save player-reported game changes, buffs, nerfs, or video findings so Warframe build calculators prioritize new mechanics over older rules.

Instructions

Save something the player told you about the game, or a finding from a video they gave you: a nerf, a buff, something that works differently, or a new method. Results for those items list it first from then on, ahead of older rules. Use it when a player says something changed or isn't how the tools describe it.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "subjects": "<subjects>",
      "reported": "<reported>"
    },
    "name": "record_mechanic"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`kind`	No
`change`	No	Makes the calculators follow it. A mod or arcane: {item, stacks} or {item, effects}, such as {item: "Primary Merciless", stacks: 6}. A weapon's Condition Overload: {condition_overload: {weapon, attack, behavior, share_pct}}, such as {condition_overload: {weapon: "Arca Plasmor", behavior: "adding"}}. Without it, only the note is saved.
`source`	No	For a video: {creator, title, uploaded, url}.
`reported`	Yes	What happens, in your own words.
`subjects`	Yes	Exact item names.
`build_impact`	No	What it means for builds.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Addedv1.12.0Nov 3, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

The description unambiguously describes a persistent write ('Save something the player told you about the game') whose effect persists into future result ordering ('list it first from then on'), while the annotations declare readOnlyHint=true. That is a direct contradiction on the single most consequential property for an agent deciding whether to call it. The one useful behavioral detail it does supply — that omitting 'change' saves only a note — cannot offset a false read-only signal.

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 core action and its consequence are front-loaded in the first sentence, and the usage trigger is placed last where it reads as a condition. It is dense but each clause carries information; the middle sentence about result ordering is slightly long but earns its place by explaining persistence behavior.

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?

For a six-parameter nested mutation with no output schema, the description covers intent and downstream effect but says nothing about what is returned, whether repeated saves merge or duplicate, or how a saved mechanic is later corrected or removed. With annotations actively misleading rather than supporting it, the description does not fill the gap.

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 83%, and the nested 'change' and 'source' objects carry detailed examples in the schema itself, so the heavy lifting is already done structurally. The description adds only loose framing ('a nerf, a buff, something that works differently, or a new method') without mapping narrative kinds to the 'kind' enum values or to specific fields. 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 gives a specific verb ('Save') and a well-scoped resource: player-reported game changes, video findings, nerfs, buffs, or new methods. It also states the downstream effect ('Results for those items list it first from then on, ahead of older rules'), which distinguishes it from read-only siblings like special_rules or weapon_build without needing their schemas.

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?

It gives an explicit trigger: 'Use it when a player says something changed or isn't how the tools describe it.' That is a clear when-to-use condition tied to the tool's role. It stops short of naming the counterpart tool for removal (forget_mechanic) or stating exclusions, so it is clear context but not full routing.

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