Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
gametrans

gametrans

by Drhushi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

scan

Destructive

Extract all translatable content from a Ren'Py or RPG Maker MV game project and build a weighted path graph to guide localization planning.

Instructions

提取全部待译内容，产出带权路径图

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": "scan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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 declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=true, yet the description reads like a read/extract-and-generate operation and never discloses what is written, overwritten, or destroyed, or whether the scan mutates project state. For a destructive tool with zero annotation-level explanation of blast radius, the description leaves the key behavioral risk unaddressed.

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 compact clause with the two outputs front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though for a destructive tool the terseness edges toward under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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 destructive annotations and no output schema, the description should explain what the scan writes or changes and what '待译内容' / '带权路径图' actually contain. It instead stops at a high-level label, leaving the mutating behavior and result shape opaque for a state-changing tool.

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?

Both parameters (project, workdir) are fully documented in the schema with defaults, so the schema carries the semantics. The description adds no syntax, format, or interaction detail about project/workdir beyond what the schema already states, which is the expected baseline at 100% coverage.

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?

The description names a concrete verb pair and two outputs: '提取全部待译内容' (extract all pending-translation content) and '产出带权路径图' (produce a weighted path graph). That is specific enough for an agent to know roughly what it returns, but it gives no differentiation from closely related siblings such as graph_show, plan, or translate.

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 this tool should be invoked versus alternatives (e.g., graph_show, plan, staleness). The only usage cue is the implicit 'pending翻译内容' scope; no prerequisites, triggers, or exclusions are stated.

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