Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Infection Free Zone MCP

Infection Free Zone MCP

by tianq021
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

plan_route

Plan a walkable route between two world points on the game's pathfinding graph, accounting for road costs and blocked water or void. Returns distance, waypoints, and bridge cell usage.

Instructions

Plan a walkable route between two world points on the game's pathfinding graph (roads cost less, water/void blocked). Returns distance, waypoints and how many bridge cells the route uses.

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": {
      "from_x": "<from_x>",
      "from_z": "<from_z>",
      "to_x": "<to_x>",
      "to_z": "<to_z>"
    },
    "name": "plan_route"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
stepNoPlanning grid step (default 25)
to_xYes
to_zYes
from_xYes
from_zYes
waypoint_spacingNoDistance between returned waypoints (default 150)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does useful work: it discloses the cost model (roads cheaper, water/void blocked) and the return contents (distance, waypoints, bridge-cell count), which implies a read-only planning call. It does not say what happens when no route exists, whether the route is cached, or any performance/limit characteristics.

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 tight sentences, front-loaded with purpose and followed by return values; nothing is wasted. It could be slightly sharper by separating constraints from outputs, but it reads cleanly.

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?

Return values are covered well enough that no output schema is needed, and the cost model is explained. However, for a 6-parameter tool with no annotations and mostly undocumented params, missing coordinate semantics and unreachable-route behavior leave real gaps.

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?

Schema description coverage is only 33%: step and waypoint_spacing are documented in the schema, but all four required coordinates are bare numbers. The description says only 'world points' without explaining coordinate units, axis conventions, or what the step and waypoint_spacing values actually affect — a significant gap for a 6-parameter tool.

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 names a specific verb and resource ('Plan a walkable route between two world points on the game's pathfinding graph') and adds the cost model. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not distinguish itself from possible siblings like bridge_probe or movement-planning tools.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative. The agent must infer that this is for pre-checking walkability, but nothing states that or rules out using other pathfinding/movement tools first.

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