Skip to main content
Glama

run_map_check

Destructive

Run Map Check on the current level to report error, warning, and info counts, with each message resolved to its actor or component.

Instructions

Run editor Map Check on the current level and report message counts, each message resolved back to the actor/component the engine attached to it.

Returns: { world: string, map_check_ran: bool, check_deprecated_only: bool, base_libraries: [string], error_count: number, warning_count: number, info_count: number, total_messages: number, messages_truncated: bool, messages: [{ severity: number, text: string, token_source: string, object_path: string, object_resolved: bool, actor_name: string, actor_label: string, actor_path: string, actor_class: string, actor_guid: string, component_name: string, class_asset_path: string, class_root: string, class_root_is_base_library: bool }] }

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
base_librariesNoPackage roots to classify each message's class against (optional, default: the project's Read Only Content Roots). An explicit [] disables the classification. Reported as data in class_root/class_root_is_base_library; the tool never judges which root is "upstream".
check_deprecated_onlyNoWhen true, only run deprecated-asset checks (optional, default false)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, yet the description reads as a pure diagnostic ("run... and report message counts") and gives no hint of what gets mutated, dirtied, or loaded. It does add genuine value by describing how messages are resolved to actors/components, but a destructive-flagged tool whose prose looks read-only leaves the agent unable to reconcile the two. Not a direct contradiction (the description never claims read-only), but a notable unexplained gap.

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?

Purpose is front-loaded in the first clause, followed by the return shape. The inline return-shape dump is long, but with no output schema it is doing necessary work and is tightly formatted rather than redundant prose.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly compensates by enumerating every returned field, including the per-message actor/component resolution detail. The remaining gap is operational: with destructiveHint=true, it never explains side effects (package dirtying, asset loading, blocking) or that it targets the current level only, which an agent needs before invoking it.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters (base_libraries, check_deprecated_only) are fully documented in the schema with defaults and semantics. The description contributes only indirectly, by echoing check_deprecated_only in the return shape; baseline 3 is correct when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Run editor Map Check"), scopes it ("on the current level"), and adds the distinctive payload: message counts plus each message resolved back to its actor/component. An agent can distinguish it from sibling validators such as check_blueprint_errors, validate_asset, or lint_blueprint_graph without opening the schema.

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?

The description never says when to reach for this tool versus the many other validation/audit siblings, nor does it state prerequisites or when-not to use it. The only conditional hint (deprecated-only mode) is carried by the schema parameter, not the prose. Usage is implied by the name, nothing more.

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