Skip to main content
Glama
SMOKE-19

War Thunder Replay MCP

by SMOKE-19
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have completely distinct purposes: one checks server status and authentication settings, the other downloads replay files. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_mcp_status, download_replay), making it easy to predict their functionality.

    Tool Count3/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a replay management system. While it may cover the core download function, additional tools for searching or listing replays would be expected.

    Completeness2/5

    The server lacks tools for discovering or searching replays; it assumes users already have user_id and session_id. This is a significant gap that forces agents to obtain IDs from external sources, limiting the server's standalone usefulness.

  • Average 3.9/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 3 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the tool returns specific data types but does not explain the format, potential side effects, or any constraints beyond cookie exposure. The description is too brief to fully inform the agent about behavioral traits.

    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 a single, well-structured sentence that immediately states the action and key details. It is appropriately sized with no wasted words, front-loading the core functionality.

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

    Completeness5/5

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

    Given the tool's low complexity (no parameters, simple return of settings) and the presence of an output schema, the description is sufficiently complete. It covers what the tool does and what it avoids, without needing to elaborate on return values since the output schema handles that.

    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 is empty, and schema description coverage is trivially 100%. The description adds meaning by specifying what the tool returns, providing context beyond the schema. Although the baseline for high coverage is 3, the description effectively communicates the tool's purpose and output, warranting a 4.

    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 returns 'local output and authentication settings' and explicitly notes what it does not expose ('cookie values'). It uses a specific verb ('Return') and resource, effectively distinguishing its purpose from the sibling tool 'download_replay' which likely focuses on replay actions.

    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?

    The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks explicit usage context, prerequisites, or scenarios. The mention of not exposing cookie values hints at a privacy consideration but does not direct the agent on appropriate use cases.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description must convey behavioral traits. It indicates the tool performs downloads, which is typically non-destructive, and mentions parallelism via the 'max_workers' parameter. However, it does not disclose potential side effects (e.g., overwriting existing files), authentication requirements, or idempotency. The description provides minimal behavioral context.

    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 extremely concise: two sentences followed by a parameter list. It front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence, and every line provides necessary information. There is no redundant or filler text.

    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 tool's simplicity (downloading replay parts with three parameters) and the presence of an output schema (which likely covers return values), the description covers the main use case well. It specifies the parameters with acceptable detail. However, it omits potential error conditions, prerequisites (e.g., authentication), or how to interpret the output file(s). Still, it is fairly complete for a straightforward download tool.

    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 provides only titles for properties (e.g., 'User Id', 'Session Id', 'Max Workers'), with no descriptions. The tool description compensates by explaining each parameter: user_id is 'Numeric War Thunder player ID', session_id is 'Hexadecimal replay session ID', max_workers is 'Parallel downloads from 1 through 8'. This adds crucial type and constraint information beyond the bare schema.

    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 action and resource: 'Download every .wrpl part for one user/session pair.' It uses a specific verb ('download') and explicitly identifies the resource ('.wrpl parts') and scope (one user/session pair). The sibling tool 'get_mcp_status' is distinct, so no confusion about purpose.

    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 the tool is used when you want to download replay parts for a specific user and session. However, it does not explicitly provide guidance on when not to use it or mention alternatives. Given only one sibling (get_mcp_status), the context is clear but the description lacks explicit usage boundaries.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

warthunder-replay-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

warthunder-replay-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/SMOKE-19/warthunder-replay-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server