Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Infection Free Zone MCP

Infection Free Zone MCP

by tianq021
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

cheat_complete_mission

Complete the objectives of one active mission by mission_id, requiring the write lease. Use it to finish a single mission safely instead of completing every mission at once.

Instructions

Complete the objectives of ONE active mission (by mission_id). Safer than cheat_complete_missions which finishes everything. Requires the write lease.

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": {
      "lease": "<lease>",
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "mission_id": "<mission_id>"
    },
    "name": "cheat_complete_mission"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
leaseYesToken returned by acquire_control
mission_idYesMission id from get_missions / get_world_data(events)
session_idYesCurrent session_id from get_state

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

There are no annotations, so the description carries the burden; it does disclose a real prerequisite ('Requires the write lease') and mutation scope (objectives of a single mission). It says nothing about irreversibility, reward or side effects, or what happens to partially completed objectives, which are the key behavioral questions for a mutating cheat tool.

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?

Three short, front-loaded sentences with no filler; scope comes first, the sibling comparison second, and the prerequisite last. Slight redundancy between 'ONE active mission' and 'Safer than ... which finishes everything', but nothing is wasted.

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 three-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers scope, the alternative, and the write-lease requirement. It leaves the post-call state and failure modes implicit, which is a small gap rather than a blocking one.

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%, so all three parameters (lease, mission_id, session_id) are already documented in the schema, including their provenance from acquire_control, get_missions, and get_state. The description only adds the constraint that the mission must be active, which is a marginal but valid supplement.

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 and resource ('Complete the objectives of ONE active mission'), pins it to mission_id, and explicitly contrasts it with the sibling cheat_complete_missions. An agent can distinguish it from the bulk variant without opening either schema.

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 states the selection condition implicitly through 'ONE active mission' versus the sibling that 'finishes everything', which is enough for routing. It does not give an explicit when-not-to-use case or mention whether a mission plan should be reviewed first, so it falls short of a full 5.

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