lms-mcp

sync_players

Synchronize two players by setting one as master to control the other slave player.

Instructions

Synchronize two players (master controls slave)

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": {
      "masterPlayerId": "<masterPlayerId>",
      "slavePlayerId": "<slavePlayerId>"
    },
    "name": "sync_players"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`masterPlayerId`	Yes	Player ID that will be the master (controls the slave)
`slavePlayerId`	Yes	Player ID that will be the slave (controlled by master)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 23, 2026

TDQS

A3.8/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description adds the behavioral trait of master-slave control beyond the annotation (readOnlyHint=false). However, it does not disclose side effects, required permissions, or what synchronization entails (e.g., playback mirroring).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence, front-loaded with the core action, and contains no redundant information. Every word is essential.

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?

For a simple tool with two parameters and no output schema, the description covers the basic function. It does not explain postconditions or error scenarios, but it is adequate for a straightforward action.

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 coverage is 100% with descriptions for both parameters. The description reinforces the roles ('master controls slave') but adds limited new meaning beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly states the action ('synchronize two players') and specifies the master-slave relationship, distinguishing it from siblings like 'unsync_player' and 'get_sync_status'. The purpose is specific and not a tautology.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies use when wanting one player to control another, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'unsync_player' or 'get_sync_groups'. No exclusions or prerequisites are provided.

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