Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
BizHawk Emulator MCP

BizHawk Emulator MCP

by KanonZombie
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

bizhawk_run_sequence

Run a sequence of Game Boy emulator operations with deterministic BizHawk control, enabling automated testing and scripted gameplay through a list of actions.

Instructions

GB-compatible sequence runner.

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": {
      "operations": "<operations>"
    },
    "name": "bizhawk_run_sequence"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
operationsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.1.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to state what side effects occur (does it alter emulator state? do operations persist?), what operations can be included in the sequence, whether it's safe/read-only, or any rate/state constraints. 'GB-compatible' hints at platform scope but offers no richer behavioral context.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is short ('GB-compatible sequence runner') with no wasted words, but this is under-specification rather than genuine conciseness. A single terse phrase doesn't earn high marks for structure since it fails to front-load useful detail.

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?

This tool has 1 parameter with 0% schema coverage, no annotations, no output schema, and no behavioral detail. The description names 'sequence' as the core concept but leaves the reader without any understanding of the operations array format, acceptable operation types, return behavior, or error semantics. For a tool that takes an arbitrary operations list, this is materially incomplete.

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%, so the description must compensate for the single 'operations' parameter. The description mentions 'sequence' but never explains what the 'operations' array should contain or its structure. The schema's items allow any additional properties, making parameter semantics even more critical - and completely unaddressed.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose2/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description 'GB-compatible sequence runner' gives only a vague verb+resource. 'Sequence runner' suggests it executes a sequence of operations on a GB emulator, but the purpose is unclear: what does 'sequence' mean, what does 'compatible' qualify, and how does this differ from the many sibling tools that all share the bizhawk_/emulator_ prefixes? The description doesn't name specific fields or behavior beyond 'runner'.

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?

No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With ~30 sibling tools including emulator_run_scenario, bizhawk_run_scenario, emulator_step, and many others, there is no statement of when run_sequence is appropriate or what differentiates it. The absence of any when/when-not guidance is a significant gap.

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