ppsspp-dfx

by AstralVoidZ

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

ppsspp_reload_scripts

Idempotent

Reload the script manifest YAML and clear cached script modules to refresh available tools and scripts.

Instructions

PURPOSE: Manually reload the script manifest YAML and clear the script module cache.

USAGE: No parameters.

BEHAVIOR: MUTATING. Re-reads the manifest file and invalidates cached script modules. Reversible: re-reading an unchanged file produces an equal registry. When the exposed tool set ACTUALLY changes (tools added or removed), the server notifies the client with a tool-list-changed notification so cached tools/list results are invalidated; a no-op reload sends nothing.

RETURNS: {reloaded_count, exposed_count, manifest_path, scripts: [ScriptEntryView...]}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description
`scripts`	Yes	All entries after reload (post-reload snapshot).
`exposed_added`	Yes	Script names newly registered by this reload's sync.
`exposed_count`	Yes	Number of exposed scripts (exposed=true) after reload.
`manifest_path`	Yes	Absolute path to the manifest YAML.
`reloaded_count`	Yes	Total script entries after reload (manifest-wide).
`exposed_removed`	Yes	Script names unregistered by this reload's sync.
`restart_required`	Yes	True when some registration changes could not be applied at runtime (SDK limitation) and a server restart is needed to fully reconcile exposed tools.
`exposed_registered`	Yes	Number of exposed scripts ACTUALLY registered as dynamic tools after the reload sync (F4/F5: declared != registered is now surfaced instead of silently diverging).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 16, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations indicate idempotentHint=true, readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false. The description adds important behavioral details: MUTATING behavior, clears cache, and the exact notification semantics (tool-list-changed notification when exposed tool set changes). It also explains reversibility. This goes beyond annotations to clarify the side-effect profile and client notification, which is valuable.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is well-structured with clear sections for PURPOSE, USAGE, BEHAVIOR, and RETURNS. It is dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, parameter count, behavior specifics, and return format. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then explains nuances without redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (no parameters) and the presence of an output schema that defines the return shape, the description is complete. It provides the purpose, usage, behavior, and return summary. The annotations cover safety and idempotence. There is nothing an agent needs to know to call this tool correctly that is missing.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool has 0 parameters, and the schema is empty. The description clearly states 'No parameters.' Since there are no parameters to disambiguate, the description fully handles parameter semantics. The schema provides no property documentation, but the description compensates by confirming the absence of parameters.

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 specific action: manually reload the script manifest YAML and clear the script module cache. The verb 'reload' and resource 'script manifest' and 'script module cache' are explicit. It is distinct from siblings like 'list_scripts' or 'run_script' which involve different actions.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description indicates this is a manual reload action, implying it is used when the user manually changes the script manifest or wants to refresh without waiting for automatic updates. It does not explicitly contrast with alternatives, but the context is clear that this is for manual intervention. No when-not-to-use is stated, but the tool's niche is well understood.

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