Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pyrogenesis Fair Player MCP

Pyrogenesis Fair Player MCP

by yunqinglt
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

observe_player

View your own units, resources, population, scoreboard, and authoritative match outcome in the active player's normal view without exposing hidden opponents.

Instructions

Observe your own units, resources and population in the active player's normal view.

Owned entities include versioned properties: capabilities, carried resources/trade goods, a sanitized current target, attacks/bonuses/healing, special roles, garrison and packing. Includes your authoritative outcome (active, won, defeated, or unknown) and whether all player slots have reached a terminal state. Also includes your scoreboard: phase, gatherers, idle units, territory, population, resources, research, construction and busy building queues. Building profiles include production, loyalty, placement rules, auras, garrison and arrows. Hidden opponents are never returned.

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": "observe_player"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that hidden opponents are never returned, that the outcome is authoritative (active/won/defeated/unknown) and terminal-state aware, and that properties are versioned and sanitized. It stops short of stating read-only semantics, cost, or latency, which is a minor gap for a no-argument observation call.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first sentence, followed by a structured enumeration of returned contents. The enumeration is long but justified because no output schema exists, so this is the only source of return-value information; only the building-profile sentence is dense enough to be slightly hard to parse.

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

Completeness4/5

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

For a parameterless read tool with no output schema, the description supplies an unusually thorough account of what comes back (owned entities, outcome, scoreboard, building profiles) and what is excluded. It is close to complete; the main omission is any statement of the operation's safety/read-only nature or response size.

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, so schema coverage is moot and there is nothing parameter-level to explain. Baseline of 4 applies; no parameter information is missing.

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 opens with a concrete verb and resource set: observe 'your own units, resources and population in the active player's normal view.' The scoping ('your own', 'active player's normal view', 'Hidden opponents are never returned') makes it distinguishable from a general map/terrain observation tool, though it never names the sibling it contrasts with.

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 guidance on when to call this versus observe_map_region, player_status, or describe_options; the perspective constraint is descriptive, not prescriptive. An agent must infer the usage context rather than being told it.

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