Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cp77wb-mcp

cp77wb-mcp

by 0xra0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

wb_find

Search World Builder names, paths, modules, assets, and NodeRefs within a file to locate references and answer lookup queries.

Instructions

Search World Builder names, paths, modules, assets and NodeRefs.

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": {
      "file": "<file>",
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "wb_find"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYes
queryYes
case_sensitiveNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden, yet it says nothing about matching semantics (substring, glob, regex), result ordering, result limits, or what the response looks like. For a read-only search this is a notable gap, though the read-only nature can be inferred from "Search".

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 the verb first and no filler. Its brevity is efficient but tips into under-specification rather than genuine conciseness.

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 three parameters, none documented, no annotations, and no output schema, a one-line description is not enough for an agent to call this reliably. The critical unknowns — what "file" scopes and how matches are computed — are left entirely unaddressed.

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%, so the description must compensate, and it does not. The role of "file" is entirely opaque (project file? path scope?), and nothing is said about how "query" is interpreted or what "case_sensitive" applies to.

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 clear verb ("Search") plus the concrete things searched — names, paths, modules, assets and NodeRefs — so an agent knows the resource scope. It does not, however, distinguish itself from near-siblings such as wb_assets_search, wb_semantic_search, or wb_get, which also perform lookup-style operations.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives among the many search/lookup siblings. Only a weak implication exists that this is a broad lookup across several entity types, with no statement of when a more specific search tool should be preferred.

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