mcp-server-runescape

get_player_hiscore

Look up any RuneScape player's rank, level, and experience or activity scores. Compare players or check game modes like ironman for both OSRS and RS.

Instructions

Returns a player's rank, level and experience or score in an activity.
Examples:
- Single: "What rank is Zezima?"
- Multi comparison: "Compare Zezima and Lynx Titan"
- "What rank is Zezima on runescape?"
- "How much experience does Lynx Titan have overall?"
- "Iron Hyger ironman?"

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": {
      "playerName": "<playerName>",
      "gameMode": "<gameMode>"
    },
    "name": "get_player_hiscore"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`type`	No	The type of game you want to get the hiscore for. Leave empty if no type is specified. Types: ironman, hardcore_ironman, ultimate, deadman, seasonal (leagues), tournament, fresh_start
`gameMode`	Yes	The mode of the game, this can be "osrs" or "rs". osrs = old school runescape, rs = runescape	osrs
`playerName`	Yes	The name of the player you want to get the hiscore for.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.2Jul 31, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description bears the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states what is returned but omits details like how game mode and type affect the result, whether the tool handles multiple players in a single call (as 'Multi comparison' suggests), and any potential errors or rate limits. The ambiguity around 'activity' and comparison behavior leaves significant gaps.

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 concise, with a clear one-sentence summary followed by a list of relevant examples. The examples are useful and not overly verbose, though some could be trimmed. The structure is front-loaded and easy to parse, earning a high score for efficient use of space.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The tool has three parameters and no output schema or annotations, so the description must compensate. It leaves key questions unanswered: whether multiple players can be compared in one call, what constitutes an 'activity', whether output format is consistent across types, and how gameMode 'rs' differs from 'osrs' in practice. The examples hint at multi-player support but the schema only accepts a single playerName, creating confusion. This incomplete picture makes it hard for an agent to fully use the tool correctly.

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?

With 100% schema description coverage, the schema already documents parameter meanings. The description adds some value through examples that illustrate playerName and gameMode usage, but it does not elaborate on parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema. The added examples show type variations (ironman) but do not explain all type options; thus it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool returns a player's rank, level, and experience/score, with a specific verb ('returns') and resource (player hiscore). However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like get_top_rankings, which also deals with hiscores, so it loses a point for missing sibling distinction.

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 examples provide implied usage scenarios (single lookups, comparisons, specific modes like ironman), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no when-not-to-use conditions, and no mention of prerequisites such as requiring a valid game mode. The context is inferred from examples rather than stated.

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

Deploy Server