gmod-mcp

package

Lints a Garry's Mod addon and builds a .gma package, refusing on lint failure. Output lands in dist/.

Instructions

Builds an addon's .gma through tools/package-gma.sh, linting first and refusing on failure. Output lands in dist/.

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": {
      "addon": "<addon>"
    },
    "name": "package"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`addon`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are minimal, so description carries full burden. It discloses the build process, lint check, failure behavior, and output destination. Lacks mention of side effects or permissions, but sufficient for a build tool.

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?

Two sentences, concise and front-loaded with the main action followed by key details. No unnecessary words.

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 single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the main action, process, and output location. Could be improved by specifying prerequisites or addon format, but generally complete.

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 coverage is 0%, but description adds meaning by linking 'addon' to the entity being built. However, it does not clarify whether 'addon' is a name, path, or ID, leaving some ambiguity.

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 clearly states the verb (builds), resource (addon's .gma), and process (lint first, refuse on failure). It distinguishes from sibling tools like 'lint' and 'validate' by focusing on packaging.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Description implies when to use (to produce a .gma) and that linting is a prerequisite, but does not explicitly state when not to use or provide direct alternatives. The context from siblings aids understanding.

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