gmod-mcp

run_test

Execute a GLua test file on the server and receive pass, fail, and results data. Provide the file path relative to lua/.

Instructions

Runs a GLua test file server-side and returns {passed, failed, results}. path is relative to lua/, e.g. 'myaddon/tests/x.lua'. The file returns a table { [name] = function(t) end }.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "run_test"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Describes the return format {passed, failed, results} and notes the test file returns a table of functions. No annotations about readOnly or destructive behavior exist, so the description partially covers behavior but omits side effects, safety implications, or any state modifications. Concise but not fully transparent.

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, no filler. The first sentence declares the action and return type; the second provides path format and test structure. Very efficient and front-loaded.

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 a single parameter, no output schema, and simple return description, the description covers the essential aspects. It could mention error behavior or what happens if the file doesn't exist, but overall it's sufficient for an agent to use correctly.

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 has one parameter 'path' with 0% description coverage, making it purely a string. The description adds significant meaning: 'relative to lua/', e.g., 'myaddon/tests/x.lua'. This clarifies the expected format and reduces ambiguity. For a single parameter with no schema description, this is effective compensation.

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?

Clearly states it runs a GLua test file server-side and returns a specific result structure. The verb 'Runs' and resource 'GLua test file' are specific, and the scope 'server-side' distinguishes from client-side operations. Among siblings like 'run_lua', this tool is distinctly for test files.

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?

Provides an example path indicating relative location within lua/, which helps usage. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'run_lua', 'validate', or 'lint'. No when-not-to-use guidance is given.

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