gmod-mcp

patch_file

Replace a file's contents in a Garry's Mod repository after backing it up, returning a patch ID and unified diff for restoration.

Instructions

Replaces a file's contents (inside the repo) after backing it up. Returns a patch id for restore_patch, plus the unified diff. rationale explains the change.

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": {
      "file": "<file>",
      "content": "<content>",
      "rationale": "<rationale>"
    },
    "name": "patch_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`file`	Yes	Path relative to the GMod repo.
`content`	Yes	The file's complete new contents.
`rationale`	Yes	Why this change is being made.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are minimal (only title), so the description carries the burden. It clearly states behavioral traits: it backs up the file, returns a patch id and diff, and requires a rationale. This adds useful context beyond the structured fields.

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 with no fluff. Every sentence adds essential information: function, side effect (backup), return values, and rationale role. Highly efficient.

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 tool with 3 parameters, no output schema, and no nested objects, the description covers purpose, behavioral details, and return format. It lacks explicit error cases or prerequisite info, but is largely 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by noting that 'rationale explains the change' and explaining return values (patch id and diff), which indirectly clarifies parameter purpose.

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 uses the verb 'replaces' and specifies the resource 'file's contents (inside the repo)'. It distinguishes from siblings by mentioning backup and returning a patch id for restore_patch, making the tool's role clear.

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?

The description implies usage context by stating the tool backs up the file and returns a patch id for restore_patch, hinting at when to use vs. its sibling. However, it lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance compared to other tools.

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