gmod-mcp

health

Check the gmod-mcp daemon status: version, repo root, scripts, state directory, addon probe, and transport state to detect issues like duplicate daemons or unregistered server handlers.

Instructions

gmod-mcp daemon status: version, detected repo root, presence of the tools/ scripts, state directory. Also probes the addon (3s) and reports the transport state -- whether this daemon owns the shared directory (a second Claude Code session starts a second daemon, which breaks every bridge tool), what is in flight, and any server handler the daemon declares but the game has not registered.

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": "health"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.1/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses a 3-second probe, the second daemon issue that breaks bridge tools, and details about inflight and unregistered handlers, offering good transparency. However, it does not explicitly state whether it is read-only.

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?

Two sentences front-load the core purpose ('gmod-mcp daemon status') and then provide necessary detail. Could be slightly more concise, but every sentence adds value.

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?

Given no output schema and a complex sibling set, the description covers the tool's output thoroughly (version, repo, scripts, state, addon probe, transport state, daemon ownership, inflight, handler gaps). Missing error conditions, but overall complete.

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

Parameters4/5

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

No parameters exist, so baseline is 4. The description compensates by describing the output content comprehensively.

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?

The description clearly states the tool reports 'gmod-mcp daemon status' and lists specific items (version, detected repo root, presence of tools/scripts, state directory, addon probe, transport state). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on daemon health rather than entity or data queries.

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 usage for checking daemon health but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives like read_runtime, nor does it provide when-not-to-use guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.