Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Infection Free Zone MCP

Infection Free Zone MCP

by tianq021
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

cheat_reveal_groups

Reveals every hostile group on the map, including hidden ones, to support threat assessment and combat planning; requires the write lease.

Instructions

Reveal every hostile group on the map, including hidden ones. 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>"
    },
    "name": "cheat_reveal_groups"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
leaseYesToken returned by acquire_control
session_idYesCurrent session_id from get_state

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the write-lease requirement and that hidden groups are included, but says nothing about whether visibility is permanent, session-scoped, or whether other players' state is affected — important for a state-mutating cheat.

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?

Two short sentences with the effect front-loaded and the prerequisite second — no redundant wording. Nothing is wasted, though it is thin for a mutation tool.

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 two-parameter cheat with fully documented params and no output schema, the essentials are present. The gap is behavioral: persistence, scope of the reveal, and failure modes when the lease is invalid or expired are unaddressed.

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 100% for both required UUID parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds the framing that the lease is a 'write' lease, reinforcing its role, but no format or sequencing detail beyond the schema.

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?

States a specific verb ('Reveal') and resource ('every hostile group on the map'), plus a scope qualifier ('including hidden ones') that distinguishes it from passive intel reads. It does not name a sibling such as get_enemy_report to clarify why an agent would pick this cheat over a read-only report.

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?

Gives the key prerequisite ('Requires the write lease'), which implies the agent must first call acquire_control. It does not state when this is preferable to the read-only enemy intel siblings, nor any cost or side-effect that would rule it out.

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