Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cp77wb-mcp

cp77wb-mcp

by 0xra0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

wb_live_player

Read the live player transform from Cyberpunk 2077 via an optional CET bridge to retrieve current position and orientation for in-game inspection.

Instructions

Read the live player transform through the optional CET bridge.

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": {
      "rpc_dir": "<rpc_dir>"
    },
    "name": "wb_live_player"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rpc_dirYes
timeoutNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses that this is a read operation via an 'optional CET bridge,' but it does not explain dependency requirements, failure modes when the bridge is unavailable, timeout behavior, or what the returned transform looks like.

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 a single efficient sentence with the core operation front-loaded. There is no wasted wording, though the 'optional CET bridge' clause is slightly ambiguous without further context.

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 no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the definition leaves too much unexplained. It does not state what the return value contains, how the bridge dependency affects execution, or what rpc_dir must point to.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and both parameters are undocumented in the schema. The description adds no meaning for rpc_dir or timeout, so the agent receives almost no semantic guidance for the required parameter.

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?

The description states a specific verb and resource: read the live player transform. That distinguishes it implicitly from siblings such as wb_live_camera or wb_live_selection, though it does not explicitly name an alternative.

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?

Usage is only implied by the phrase 'live player transform.' There is no explicit guidance on when to use this instead of wb_live_state or wb_live_camera, and no prerequisites or exclusions are stated.

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