Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pyrogenesis Fair Player MCP

Pyrogenesis Fair Player MCP

by yunqinglt
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

clear_rally_point

Clears owned rally queues so newly produced units stop receiving rally orders, while already born or unloaded units keep their current tasks.

Instructions

Clear owned rally queues. Already born/unloaded units keep their current tasks.

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": {
      "entity_ids": "<entity_ids>"
    },
    "name": "clear_rally_point"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_idsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

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 it does disclose a genuine behavioral trait: units already produced or unloaded keep their current tasks rather than being recalled. However, it omits permission/ownership semantics, whether the clear is reversible, and what happens to in-progress production queues tied to the rally point.

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?

Two short sentences with the primary action front-loaded and the caveat second. Nothing is wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the definition leaves key gaps: the meaning of entity_ids, ownership/permission scope, and the result of the operation. The one behavioral note is useful but not sufficient for a state-changing game action.

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 coverage is 0% for the single required parameter 'entity_ids', and the description never mentions it. It is unclear whether these IDs refer to rally points, production buildings, or units, which is critical for invoking the tool correctly.

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?

Names a specific verb and resource ('Clear owned rally queues'), which is clearly distinct from the sibling 'set_rally_point'. It is slightly ambiguous about what is being cleared (rally point assignments on which entities), but the operation itself is unambiguous.

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?

No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is given, and no alternative is referenced. An agent must infer that this is the inverse of set_rally_point and must guess whether it belongs before or after ordering units.

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