Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Buildup

Buildup

by SNX830
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

teardown_reference

Read-only

Write Teardown mod XML and text files with topic-specific facts and verification status for workflows, frames, materials, vehicles, props, and mod folders.

Instructions

Teardown facts needed to write the mod's XML and text files.

Each fact says whether it is verified in game or only seen in official files.

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": {
      "topic": "<topic>"
    },
    "name": "teardown_reference"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicYes'workflow' (steps to build a vehicle), 'frame' (coordinates and XML positions), 'materials', 'vehicle_xml', 'prop_xml', 'mod_files' (info.txt, spawn.txt, folders).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare read-only and non-open-world, but the description adds that each fact includes a verification status (in-game vs. official files). This is valuable behavioral context about the output, beyond the safety hints.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two concise sentences that front-load the purpose and then add a key detail. No wasted words, though the first sentence could be slightly clearer.

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?

For a simple read-only lookup with one parameter and no output schema, the description adequately explains the tool's domain and output characteristic (verification status). It could be clearer about what 'Teardown' refers to, but overall it's complete enough.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema fully documents the single enum parameter. The description does not add any semantics for the 'topic' parameter beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

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?

The description conveys that the tool provides reference facts for writing mod XML/text files, but it lacks an explicit verb like 'returns' or 'retrieves' and doesn't clearly distinguish itself from siblings beyond the domain. The agent can infer it's a lookup tool, but the purpose isn't sharply stated.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'needed to write...' implies a use case, but there's no mention of prerequisites, when not to use, or which sibling to choose instead.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools