Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

iDos Games

by com.idosgames
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Apply Jev tuning

tuning_apply
Destructive

Write a plan's picks into the Title's config (each section through the same checks as save_, the game picks it up without a rebuild) and record the change in the Title's history. Free. Returns entry_id: pass it to tuning_undo to roll the change back. Show the publisher the plan before applying.

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": {
      "title_id": "<title_id>",
      "picks": "<picks>"
    },
    "name": "tuning_apply"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
picksYesPicks of the plan to apply (from tuning_preview / tuning_reroll / tuning_surprise).
requestNoOptional: the publisher's words, kept in the history entry.
title_idYesTitleID.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing that the write goes through the same validation as save_<section>, that the game picks it up with no rebuild, that history is recorded, and that the change can be rolled back. The one gap is that it does not spell out what existing config state is replaced when a section is overwritten, which matters given destructiveHint=true.

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 action and effect in the first sentence, then stacks the cost, return value, and prerequisite. The nested parenthetical about save_<section> checks makes the opening sentence dense, but nothing is redundant.

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 destructive write with no output schema, the description covers the mutation target, validation behavior, persistence timing, history side effect, reversibility path, and a human-approval prerequisite. Only the overwrite semantics of existing sections remain unstated.

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 100%, so all three parameters are already documented. The description adds only that entry_id is returned for use with tuning_undo, which is about output rather than parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 target: writing a plan's picks into the Title's config, with the history record as a second effect. It also differentiates from siblings by noting each section passes the same checks as save_<section>, so an agent can tell this apart from a bare save_* call.

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 clear operational context: it is free, the change is reversible via tuning_undo using the returned entry_id, and the publisher should see the plan before applying. It lacks an explicit 'use tuning_preview/reroll/surprise first' statement in prose, but the schema covers that, so the gap is minor.

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

All iDos Games toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources