Skip to main content
Glama
Koodattu

wow-addon-api-mcp

by Koodattu
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

get_namespace

Read-onlyIdempotent

List functions, events, types, and systems in a specific namespace for a chosen WoW patch and game channel.

Instructions

List functions, events, types, and systems belonging to an exact namespace in one patch in the selected channel.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
channelYesGame channel; never inferred from a version number
versionYesPatch, full client build, build number, or latest within the selected channel
namespaceYesNamespace such as C_UnitAuras or C_Discord

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / channel
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Game channel; never inferred from a version number",
+  "enum": [
+    "retail",
+    "forever"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / version / description
      Previous value: -"Retail patch, full client build, build number, or latest"New value: +"Patch, full client build, build number, or latest within the selected channel"
    • addedInput schema / properties / version / minLength
      Added value: +1
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "namespace"
-]New value: +[
+  "namespace",
+  "channel",
+  "version"
+]
  2. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and the description's 'List' aligns with them. It adds scoping context (one patch, selected channel) but does not disclose output format, pagination, or potential none/empty results; the annotation coverage keeps this at a 3.

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?

A single 16-word sentence that front-loads the action and resource, then packs the relevant scope constraints with no filler. Every phrase earns its place.

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?

For a read-only listing tool with three well-documented parameters, this is largely complete: it states what will be returned (functions/events/types/systems) and the exact scope. The only gaps are minor—no mention of return shape, error cases, or behavior when nothing is found—and no output schema exists to fill them.

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 already documents namespace, channel, and version. The description loosely echoes the parameters ('exact namespace', 'one patch', 'selected channel') but adds no parameter-level detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb ('List') and names the exact resource categories (functions, events, types, systems) plus scoping constraints (exact namespace, one patch, selected channel). This clearly distinguishes it from single-entity siblings like get_enum/get_event and from lookup/search tools.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when the tool is appropriate by emphasizing an exact namespace and single patch/channel, but it never states when to prefer it over lookup_api/search_api or other siblings. No alternatives or exclusionary guidance is provided.

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