Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cp77wb-mcp

cp77wb-mcp

by 0xra0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

wb_tree

Reads a Cyberpunk 2077 World Builder build hierarchy from a file, optionally showing modules, to inspect environment structure.

Instructions

Read a World Builder build hierarchy.

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>"
    },
    "name": "wb_tree"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYes
show_modulesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations and no output schema, the description carries the full behavioral burden but only implies read-only behavior through 'Read'. It omits whether it traverses the whole file, requires a valid build, exposes node or module details, how errors are handled, and what the output shape is.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

It is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is concise. However, the terseness leaves core details unspecified, so the structure is clean but not sufficiently informative.

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?

For a read tool with two parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the definition is missing the context needed to call it correctly. It does not describe the input file semantics, the effect of show_modules, or the hierarchy returned.

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?

Both parameters are undocumented in the schema (0% coverage), and the description does not mention either. It never explains what 'file' should be (path or ID?) or what 'show_modules' toggles.

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 description gives a verb ('Read') and a resource ('World Builder build hierarchy'), so the basic intent is clear. It does not clarify what 'build hierarchy' contains or how wb_tree differs from sibling read tools like wb_get, wb_find, or wb_refs, leaving the agent to infer scope.

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 guidance on when to use wb_tree instead of other read or inspection tools. No preconditions, exclusions, or alternative tool selection criteria are provided.

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