gmod-mcp

reload_addon

Touches every Lua file of an addon to trigger autorefresh, applying code changes without restarting the game. Best for non-structural updates.

Instructions

Touches every .lua file of an addon to trigger autorefresh. Best-effort; structural changes still need a restart.

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": "reload_addon"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`addon`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.9/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no readOnlyHint or destructiveHint annotations, the description carries the burden. It discloses the action (touching Lua files), the trigger (autorefresh), and the limitation ('Best-effort; structural changes still need a restart'). This provides adequate transparency for a refresh operation.

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 consists of two concise sentences (20 words) with no redundancy. The first sentence front-loads the primary action, and the second provides an important caveat. Every sentence 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?

Given the single required parameter, lack of output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is mostly complete. It explains the tool's behavior and limitations. However, it could be more complete by mentioning the return type (e.g., success/failure) or examples of addon naming.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage and the description does not elaborate on the 'addon' parameter beyond the tool name. The agent must infer that 'addon' expects a string identifier, but the description adds no format or example, which is insufficient given the schema's minimal documentation.

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 'Touches every .lua file of an addon to trigger autorefresh', specifying the verb (touches), resource (Lua files of an addon), and action (autorefresh). It distinguishes from siblings like 'reload_file' by targeting all files of an addon rather than a single file.

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 code changes without structural impact via 'Best-effort; structural changes still need a restart.' It does not explicitly state when to use or when not to use, nor does it name alternative tools, leaving the agent to infer usage context from sibling names.

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