Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
random-pokemon-mcp

random-pokemon-mcp

by yuren-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_pokemon

Read-only

Look up a Pokémon by English species name or National Dex ID to retrieve PokeAPI abilities, legendary/mythical flags, and an artwork URL.

Instructions

Look up a bundled English species name or National Dex ID, with PokeAPI abilities and separate legendary/mythical flags; artwork URL only.

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": {
      "pokemon": "<pokemon>"
    },
    "name": "get_pokemon"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pokemonYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/closed-world/non-destructive, and the description adds genuinely new behavioral facts: the data is 'bundled' (local, not live PokeAPI calls), abilities come from PokeAPI, legendary and mythical are separate flags, and only an artwork URL is returned ('artwork URL only').

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?

A single dense sentence with the key facts front-loaded; the semicolon-clause on artwork is slightly compressed but every clause carries information.

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?

With no output schema, the description carries the return-value burden and does list the main fields (abilities, legendary/mythical flags, artwork URL). Missing detail on full response shape and error behavior for unknown names, but adequate for a simple lookup.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: the single parameter accepts either an English species name or a National Dex ID. It does not restate the 1-1025 bound, which the schema already enforces.

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 concrete verb and resource ('Look up a bundled English species name or National Dex ID') and even summarizes the payload (abilities, legendary/mythical flags, artwork). It is clearly the species-data lookup among a set of analysis siblings, though it never names them.

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 phrase 'bundled English species name or National Dex ID' implies the correct usage context and inputs, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not-to-use and no routing to alternatives like get_type_effectiveness or calc_damage.

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