Track domination victory progress: view original capitals of met civilizations, their current holders, and whether your team controls each. Unrevealed coordinates and unmet holders are masked.
Original capitals of met civilizations and their current holders; unrevealed coordinates and unmet holders are masked. Includes whether our team controls each capital.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.11.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does disclose useful traits: masking of unrevealed coordinates and unmet holders, plus inclusion of team control flag. It doesn't clarify read-only nature explicitly, but 'progress' strongly implies a read.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single dense sentence that front-loads the core content. Slightly heavy with clauses, but nothing extraneous.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description is the sole source. It covers masking and control status but omits return structure or pagination considerations; adequate for a zero-param query but not fully complete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool takes no parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Schema coverage is 100% and there are no params to document.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Names a specific resource (original capitals of met civilizations, current holders, our control status) which is distinct from siblings like demographics or overview. The verb is implicit (a status/progress read), but the content is clearly scoped to domination victory progress.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No indication of when to use this versus siblings such as overview or demographics. The description states what data it returns but offers no usage context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.