Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Infection Free Zone MCP

Infection Free Zone MCP

by tianq021
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

status

Check whether the configured Infection Free Zone game and its current settlement are ready before issuing game orders.

Instructions

Check whether the configured IFZ game and its current settlement are ready.

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": "status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.2

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it never defines what 'ready' means, whether the call is read-only and side-effect free, or whether it can fail or block. It also does not say whether a non-ready result requires remediation or which tool to call next.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the readiness question is stated immediately. Nothing could be removed without losing meaning.

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?

Given there is no output schema and no annotations, the description should clarify what a 'ready' result looks like, but it does not. For a low-complexity, zero-parameter check the gap is modest, but an agent cannot predict the response shape or interpret a negative result.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the implicit use of the server's configured game context. Baseline for a parameterless tool applies.

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 check verb and the resources involved (the configured IFZ game and its current settlement), so an agent knows this is a readiness probe rather than a data fetch. It does not distinguish itself from diagnostic siblings like diagnose_pause or get_changes, leaving some ambiguity about which check to run when.

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 guidance on when this should be called, no preconditions, and no alternatives named. The agent must guess whether this is a startup check, a pre-mutation gate, or a general health probe.

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