Skip to main content
Glama

RedM Mcp

by no.fivem.redm-mcp

Share a verified finding back to the docs

share_finding

Share a verified finding back to the docs corpus so the next agent can find it. Use AFTER solving a non-trivial problem to record what would have saved you time: a gotcha, a working parameter combo, an undocumented constraint, a relationship between two natives that isn't obvious. Other agents will find this via semantic_search (findings are merged into default results; category: 'learnings' returns only findings).

WHEN to use:

  • You burned multiple iterations on something not in the docs.

  • You discovered an undocumented quirk (param order, hash collision, framework export that isn't in vorp/rsgcore).

  • You verified that a specific combination works (e.g. native A + flag B for behavior C).

WHEN NOT to use:

  • The information is already in the docs (verify with semantic_search/grep_docs first).

  • You're guessing — only contribute verified findings.

  • It's project-specific (your repo's auth flow, your DB schema). Keep it general to RedM/RDR3.

Keep title short and searchable. body should explain WHY, not just WHAT — context, the trap, the fix.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
bodyYesMarkdown explaining WHY: context, the trap, the fix, verified behavior.
tagsNoUp to 8 lowercase tags, e.g. ['weapons', 'damage'].
titleYesShort, searchable summary of the finding.
sourceNoOptional short identifier of the contributing agent.
categoryNoOptional doc category this relates to.

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description explains behavioral consequences beyond annotations: findings are merged into default `semantic_search` results, and `category: 'learnings'` filters to only findings. It also sets quality expectations (only verified findings, general to RedM/RDR3), which aren't in the annotations. The annotations (readOnlyHint=false) are consistent with the write operation.

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?

The description is lengthier than average but well organized into a main summary and bulleted lists for when/not-to-use. Every section contributes actionable guidance, and the explicit 'WHEN' structure improves scannability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has no output schema, so return-value explanation isn't needed. The description covers the 'why', 'when', 'when not', and behavioral effects (findings integrated into semantic search), making it sufficient for an agent to decide when to invoke it and how to write appropriate content.

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?

The input schema already provides full descriptions for all five parameters (100% coverage), including 'Short, searchable summary' for title and 'Markdown explaining WHY' for body. The description adds little extra about parameters beyond restating those schema cues, so it relies on schema for field semantics.

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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: sharing a verified finding back to the docs corpus. It uses specific verbs ('Share', 'record') and distinguishes from sibling read/search tools by emphasizing this is a write action. The phrase 'so the next agent can find it' makes the goal clear.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description includes explicit 'WHEN to use' and 'WHEN NOT to use' sections, listing concrete scenarios (burning iterations, undocumented quirks) and exclusions (info already in docs, guessing, project-specific content). It even names alternatives (`semantic_search`/`grep_docs`) for verifying prior existence, which serves as a when-not-to-use.

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

All RedM Mcp toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: asset_lookup handles game-asset hashes/names, lookup_native handles script natives, grep_docs does exact token search, semantic_search handles concept/behavior queries, browse/list_namespaces orient, get_document/read_lines retrieve content, get_invoke_guide is a specialized reference, and share_finding contributes. The descriptions explicitly cross-reference when NOT to use each tool, eliminating ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow verb_noun pattern (get_document, grep_docs, list_namespaces, lookup_native, read_lines, share_finding), but asset_lookup uses noun_verb order, and browse is a bare verb. The deviation is minor and the pattern remains predictable.

Tool Count5/5

10 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range. Each tool earns its place: search, retrieval, discovery, lookup, and contribution are all covered without bloat. The count matches the server's purpose as a comprehensive documentation interface.

Completeness5/5

The domain is RedM/RDR3 documentation access, and the set covers the full lifecycle: orientation (list_namespaces, browse), search (semantic_search, grep_docs, lookup_native, asset_lookup), retrieval (get_document, read_lines, get_invoke_guide), and contribution (share_finding). There are no obvious dead ends or missing operations for the stated purpose.

Resources