Pyrogenesis Fair Player MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

set_unit_packing

Fold selected siege units into packed state for transport or deploy them by unpacking. Sends the native pack or unpack order to units that support it and are in the opposite state.

Instructions

Fold siege units for transport (packed=true) or deploy them (false).

All selected units must support packing, be stable and differ from the desired state. This submits the native pack/unpack order; observe packing.state to confirm completion.

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>",
      "packed": "<packed>"
    },
    "name": "set_unit_packing"
  }
}

Input Schema

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

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 12, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does meaningful work: it discloses that this issues the native pack/unpack order (asynchronous) and that the agent must poll packing.state to confirm completion rather than assuming success. Gaps remain around ownership/permission requirements, failure modes when preconditions are unmet, and the effect of the queued flag.

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?

Three short sentences, each earning its place: the core action and boolean semantics first, preconditions second, and the asynchronous confirmation note last. No redundant restatement of the tool name or filler.

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?

For a three-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the essential async workflow and preconditions but leaves one parameter (queued) and error behavior undocumented, forcing the agent to guess at edge cases.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It fully explains the packed boolean ('fold for transport' vs 'deploy') and implies entity_ids via 'all selected units', but the queued parameter is never mentioned and no format or batching semantics for entity_ids are given.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: toggling packing state on siege units, with the boolean meaning spelled out ('packed=true' folds for transport, 'false' deploys). This is clearly distinct from siblings like set_unit_stance or move_units, though it never acknowledges the closely related cancel_unit_packing.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description lists real preconditions (units must support packing, be stable, and differ from the desired state), which effectively tells the agent when a call will fail. However, it provides no guidance on choosing this tool over cancel_unit_packing or on batching versus per-unit calls, so usage context is implied rather than stated.

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