Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gametrans

gametrans

by Drhushi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

engine_detect

Read-only

Detect the game engine used by a specified directory so Gametrans chooses suitable scanning, extraction, and write-back routines.

Instructions

探测目录使用的是什么引擎

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "engine_detect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo要探测的目录（默认项目目录）
projectNo游戏项目根目录（默认当前目录）
workdirNo工作区目录，默认 <项目>/.gametrans

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered by structured data. The description adds nothing beyond that: no mention of detection method, behavior on unknown/ambiguous engines, or what the result represents.

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?

A single short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is appropriately sized, though the extreme brevity is partly why other dimensions are thin.

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 output schema, the description should at least indicate what detection yields (an engine name, type, or confidence), but it does not. For a query tool whose entire value is the return value, this is a meaningful gap.

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%, with all three parameters (path, project, workdir) documented in-schema including default behavior. The description's '目录' loosely aligns with the path parameter but adds no syntax or format detail beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb ('探测'/detect) and resource ('目录使用的是什么引擎'/which engine a directory uses), so an agent knows it identifies the engine for a given directory. However, it offers no differentiation from siblings like engine_info or engine_list, which likely also surface engine information.

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 indication of when to use this tool versus engine_info, engine_list, or engine_options, nor any prerequisites. The agent must infer the routing from the name alone.

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