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

random-pokemon-mcp

by yuren-dev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

get_type_effectiveness

Read-only

Calculate Pokémon type effectiveness for one or two attacking or defending types, returning attack groups or multiplied defense values.

Instructions

Gen VI+ 18-type attack groups and/or multiplied defense for one or two distinct types.

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": "get_type_effectiveness"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
attackingNo
defendingNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.3.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare a read-only, closed-world, non-destructive lookup, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful detail that the data reflects Gen VI+ rules and that results differ by one or two types, but it does not say what the response looks like (multiplier map? grouped lists?) or what happens when neither parameter is supplied.

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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is terse to the point of being cryptic, but nothing is wasted or buried.

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?

With 0% schema coverage, two undocumented parameters, and no output schema, the description bears full explanatory burden and falls short. An agent cannot confidently predict the response shape or the semantics of omitting either or both parameters.

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 carry meaning and it partially does: 'attack groups' maps to the attacking parameter and 'multiplied defense' to defending, and 'one or two distinct types' explains the 1-2 item array. It leaves the optionality ambiguous, though — 'and/or' implies a valid empty call without saying what that returns.

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 name and description together identify a Pokémon type-matchup lookup, and 'Gen VI+' pins down the ruleset. But the phrasing 'attack groups and/or multiplied defense' is non-standard jargon rather than a stated verb+resource ('return type effectiveness multipliers'), and it never distinguishes this from siblings like calc_damage.

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?

No when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives such as calc_damage or analyze_team. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the type-chart tool rather than the damage calculator.

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