gmod-mcp

read_view

Retrieves eye position, aim trace, health, weapon, and UI focus to determine what the player is looking at, enabling context-aware actions without a screenshot.

Instructions

What the client sees and is pointed at: eye position and angles, aim trace (class, index, distance, hit position), health, weapon, cursor position and visibility, the hovered panel, the panel holding keyboard focus, and the current scripted-input mode. This is the cheap half of an act-then-look loop -- one chunk, no image -- and answers 'am I aimed at the door' without a screenshot.

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": "read_view"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

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?

The description discloses that the operation is cheap, returns no image, and lists the data returned. It implies read-only behavior but does not explicitly state lack of side effects. Since annotations are minimal (only title), the description carries the burden and does so well.

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?

The description is two sentences, front-loaded with the key outputs, and wastes no words. Every sentence adds value: the first lists returned data, the second provides context and usage guidance.

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 input schema and no output schema, the description provides a reasonably complete picture of what the tool returns. It could be more explicit about the exact return structure, but it sufficiently covers the tool's purpose and behavioral characteristics.

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?

The input schema has zero parameters, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline for 0 params is 4, and the description adequately sets expectations about what the tool returns.

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 what the tool does: it reads the client's view state including eye position, aim trace, health, weapon, etc. It distinguishes itself from screenshot-based tools by emphasizing 'no image' and positioning itself as the cheap half of an act-then-look loop.

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 when to use the tool (when you need view state quickly and cheaply without an image) and contrasts with a screenshot approach. While it doesn't explicitly name alternatives, the sibling tools list includes 'capture_screen', and the description's context provides clear guidance.

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