Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
pokemon-mcp

pokemon-mcp

by suirenn0627
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

calc_stat

Compute a Pokemon's actual stat values (HP, Attack, Defense, Sp. Atk, Sp. Def, Speed) from base stats, level, IVs, EVs, and nature (supports English and Japanese names).

Instructions

実数値を計算。stat は hp/atk/def/spa/spd/spe。nature は英名/日本語名どちらも可。

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": {
      "base": "<base>"
    },
    "name": "calc_stat"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseYes
levelNo
ivNo
evNo
natureNohardy
statNoatk

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the transparency burden. It mentions calculation of real values but does not disclose the return format, behavior under invalid inputs, or whether the calculation is deterministic. A calculation tool requires less transparency, but the lack of any detail on output or constraints is a gap.

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 two sentences, immediately states the purpose, and provides key parameter hints without any fluff. It is optimally concise.

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?

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not explain the calculation formula, the meaning of base/level/iv/ev, or what value is returned. A more complete description would detail the calculation or at least the return type.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With 0% schema description coverage, the description must add meaning for all 6 parameters. It only clarifies two (stat and nature), leaving base, level, iv, and ev unexplained. The defaults are present in the schema but no semantics are added beyond that.

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 it calculates real values for a given stat, listing valid stat names (hp/atk/def/spa/spd/spe) and noting that nature accepts English or Japanese names. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like calc_accuracy or calc_damage, leaving some ambiguity.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (calc_accuracy, calc_damage). It only lists valid parameter values, which is helpful but insufficient for choosing among siblings.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools