Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
FiveM MCP

FiveM MCP

by 999luan
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Criar resource FiveM

fivem.resource_create

Generate a new FiveM resource structure with Lua, fxmanifest, client/server scripts, and optional NUI UI scaffold. Choose from standalone, QBCore, or ESX frameworks.

Instructions

Cria um resource base em Lua com fxmanifest, client/server e scaffold opcional de NUI.

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": {
      "resourceName": "<resourceName>"
    },
    "name": "fivem.resource_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
titleNo
withUiNo
uiThemeNoviolet
frameworkNostandalone
overwriteNo
uiVariantNomodal
resourceNameYes
resourcesDirNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose side effects. It mentions creating files but omits key behaviors like overwrite semantics, directory requirements, and whether existing files are modified. This is insufficient for a mutation tool.

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 concise sentence that front-loads the action ('Cria') and lists key components without fluff. Every word is useful, though it is brief for a tool with 8 parameters.

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?

Given 8 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, this description is far from complete. It omits return values, side effects, parameter semantics, and any practical usage context, leaving the agent with significant gaps.

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% and the description only vaguely hints at optional NUI scaffolding. It does not explain parameters like framework, uiTheme, uiVariant, overwrite, resourcesDir, or title. The description adds minimal value beyond the raw schema.

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 it creates a base FiveM resource in Lua with fxmanifest, client/server files, and optional NUI scaffold. This distinguishes it from sibling inspection tools like fivem.resource_inspect and scaffolding tools like fivem.ui_scaffold.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The verb 'Cria' (creates) implies this tool is for new resource generation, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or comparison to alternatives such as fivem.ui_scaffold for NUI-only work. Usage context is only implicit.

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