gmod-mcp

validate

Checks a Garry's Mod addon's lint and runtime errors. Returns true only when lint is clean and no runtime error occurred.

Instructions

Verdict for the loop: the addon's lint plus the current boot's runtime errors. ok=true when lint is clean AND no runtime error was seen.

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": "validate"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`addon`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.0.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

C2.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Description discloses it checks lint and runtime errors to return ok=true/false. No annotations exist, so this is the only behavioral info. It doesn't mention side effects, permissions, or how it accesses data.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Single sentence, concise but terse. Uses unclear terms like 'Verdict for the loop' and 'ok=true' without context. Could be restructured for clarity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, so description should clarify return format. It only implies a boolean result but doesn't specify if it's a field 'ok' in an object. Missing error conditions or non-ok scenarios.

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?

Input schema has one parameter 'addon' with no description. Description mentions 'the addon's lint', linking parameter to lint check, but doesn't explain format, examples, or how value is used. Schema coverage is 0%, but description adds minimal value.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description says it's a 'Verdict for the loop' combining lint and runtime errors, which is a specific purpose but vague and jargon-heavy. It doesn't fully clarify what 'validate' computes beyond a boolean condition. Sibling tools like 'lint' and 'read_runtime' suggest aggregation, but no explicit distinction.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives like 'lint' or 'read_runtime'. It doesn't specify prerequisites or context for invocation.

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