Skip to main content
Glama
Infection Free Zone MCP

Infection Free Zone MCP

by tianq021

get_loot_targets

Ranks un-scavenged buildings for AI squads by nearest targets, per-squad distances, and dense building clusters to prioritize loot runs with more loot per trip.

Instructions

Rank un-scavenged buildings for the AI squads: nearest targets, per-squad distances and building clusters (dense areas give more loot per trip).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "get_loot_targets"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax rows (default 12)
radiusNoMax distance from HQ (default 1200)
squad_idNoLimit ranking to one squad

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?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It usefully discloses ranking behavior and the cluster-density factor that increases loot per trip, but it does not state whether results are read-only, live, cached, or how already-claimed targets are handled.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical explanation of building clusters earns its place by clarifying the ranking heuristic, though the dense phrasing could be split for readability.

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 read-style ranking tool with three optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers the purpose and result facets reasonably well. It still lacks guidance on when to choose this tool over related planning or recommendation tools, and it does not describe response structure or freshness.

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 the input schema already documents limit, radius, and squad_id including defaults and bounds. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning beyond implying per-squad ranking and distance-based selection.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it ranks un-scavenged buildings for AI squads. It also names the ranking facets: nearest targets, per-squad distances, and building clusters. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings such as get_scavenge_plan or get_recommendations.

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?

Usage is implied by 'Rank un-scavenged buildings for the AI squads,' but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. No alternatives or prerequisites are named, leaving the agent to infer this is the loot-target ranking option.

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