Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Pyrogenesis Fair Player MCP

Pyrogenesis Fair Player MCP

by yunqinglt
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

stop_units

Halt selected movable units you own via an ordinary network command, immediately canceling their current movement orders.

Instructions

Stop your currently owned movable units with an ordinary network command.

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": "stop_units"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entity_idsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not state what 'stop' does to queued orders, whether units remain selected or resume afterward, whether the action is reversible, or what errors occur for invalid or non-owned entity IDs.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single short, front-loaded sentence with no padding beyond the trailing 'with an ordinary network command' clause, which is filler. Brevity is achieved at the cost of substance rather than through efficient density.

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 one-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should at least clarify the effect on unit state and the return/error contract. It covers neither, so an agent must guess at the observable consequences of the call.

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 description coverage is 0% for the single entity_ids parameter, so the description must compensate and does not. It never clarifies that entity_ids are the IDs of the caller's own unit entities, nor what happens if an ID refers to a building or another player's unit.

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

Purpose3/5

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

The verb 'stop' and resource 'movable units' are present, and 'currently owned' scopes it to the caller's units, which distinguishes it from delete_own_units. However, 'stop' is ambiguous in an RTS context (halt movement? halt attack? cancel current order?) and the phrase 'with an ordinary network command' adds no discriminating meaning.

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?

The description gives no indication of when to use this instead of siblings like move_units, set_unit_stance, or delete_own_units. There is no prerequisite, exclusion, or alternative routing, leaving the agent to infer usage purely from the name.

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