Pyrogenesis Fair Player MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

order_units

Issues up to 100 validated tasks to selected units in 0 A.D., including attack, gather, build, heal, patrol and trade; queued=true appends orders, false replaces prior tasks.

Instructions

Issue 1..100 tasks in order; queued=false replaces prior tasks, true appends.

Target tasks: attack (damage, no capture), capture, gather, repair (also foundations), garrison, occupy_turret, heal, guard, collect_treasure, return_resource and trade. Support and trade targets must be your own; treasure must be visible Gaia. Position tasks patrol and attack_move use world x/z. Build tasks use an allowed structure template plus world x/z and optional angle in radians. Every task is validated before any command is posted. Native placement, costs, diplomacy and pathing still apply. Accepted means submitted; observe later to verify the outcome. No formations are created.

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>",
      "orders": "<orders>"
    },
    "name": "order_units"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`orders`	Yes
`queued`	No
`entity_ids`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full load and does so well: it discloses that every task is validated before any command is posted (a pre-flight rejection semantics), that acceptance is not execution, that native placement/costs/diplomacy/pathing still apply, and that no formations are created. It omits what happens on partial validation failure (whole batch rejected vs. per-task) and any rate or entity-count limits.

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?

Front-loads the core behavior and queued semantics in the first line, then organizes the rest by task family. The dense run-on list of task names is information-bearing rather than filler, though it could be broken into bullets for faster scanning.

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 three-parameter tool with a polymorphic order union, no annotations, and no output schema, this is close to complete: it covers validation timing, async confirmation, and coordinate conventions. The remaining gap is the entity_ids-to-orders relationship, which an agent needs in order to shape a correct call.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description compensates by explaining the queued flag's replace-vs-append semantics, which order types need a target versus coordinates, that position tasks use world x/z, and that build tasks take a structure template plus x/z and an optional angle in radians. It leaves unclear how entity_ids maps to orders (broadcast to all listed entities vs. one-per-entity) and what the "1..100" bound applies to.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a concrete verb and resource ("Issue 1..100 tasks") and enumerates the full task vocabulary (attack, capture, gather, repair, garrison, occupy_turret, heal, guard, collect_treasure, return_resource, trade, patrol, attack_move, build), making clear this is the task-assignment entry point rather than a raw movement tool like move_units or stop_units.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives useful conditions: which order types exist, that support/trade targets must be your own, treasure must be visible Gaia, and that "Accepted means submitted; observe later to verify the outcome." It does not explicitly contrast with siblings such as move_units, stop_units, or abandon_targets, so the agent must infer when to prefer those instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.