Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
arma3-wiki MCP Server

arma3-wiki MCP Server

by ScottTMConnors
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

get_tutorial

Read a bundled Arma 3 scripting tutorial by name; use the tutorial list to identify valid names.

Instructions

Read a scripting tutorial by name (see list_tutorials).

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": {
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "get_tutorial"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it delivers very little. "Read" implies a non-mutating operation, but nothing is said about exact-match vs. fuzzy lookup, failure behavior for an unknown tutorial, or any access requirements. The presence of an output schema excuses it from describing return values, but not from disclosing lookup semantics.

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?

One short sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the cross-reference placed where it is needed. There is no filler to remove.

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

Completeness3/5

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

This is a simple one-parameter read tool with an output schema, so the bar is low and the definition clears it enough to be invocable. Still, the agent must guess at lookup exactness and error behavior, which for a name-keyed fetch is the main remaining risk.

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 0% for the single parameter, so the description must compensate. It does add the important hint that the name is a tutorial identifier best obtained from list_tutorials, which is real value over a bare `string` schema, but it says nothing about case sensitivity or accepted format.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description gives a specific verb ("Read") and a specific resource ("a scripting tutorial"), plus the keying mechanism ("by name"). That distinguishes it from list_tutorials and the other lookup/list siblings, though it never explicitly names any sibling other than as a pointer.

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 parenthetical "(see list_tutorials)" implies the discovery-then-fetch workflow and steers the agent to the right sibling for enumeration. Beyond that there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no statement of what happens if the name is unknown.

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