sims4-tc-mcp

create_stbl_dictionary

Hashes string references and writes STBL resources for all 18 Sims 4 locales, letting you generate localized string dictionaries from key/text items.

Instructions

Hash string references and write STBL resources (all 18 locales).

Each item: {"key": "mod:thing.name", "text": "Display Name",
"locale": "en_us"} (locale optional).

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": {
      "strings": "<strings>",
      "base_name": "<base_name>"
    },
    "name": "create_stbl_dictionary"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`strings`	Yes
`base_name`	Yes
`output_dir`	No
`generate_all_locales`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 13, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

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 burden for a write/create tool. It reveals the locale scope (18 locales, locale per item optional) but omits overwrite semantics, permission or path requirements, and any indication of what is returned or what could be destroyed.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action, followed by a compact example of the item payload. No filler, though the example could be tied explicitly to the `strings` parameter.

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?

For a four-parameter write tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema coverage, the description leaves too much open: the destination of the writes (output_dir), the naming role of base_name, and the effect of generate_all_locales versus the stated 18-locale behavior are all unresolved.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description does add real meaning for the nested `strings` items by showing the {key, text, locale} shape and marking locale optional — detail the schema cannot convey since items declare no properties. However, base_name, output_dir, and generate_all_locales are never explained, so half the surface stays undocumented.

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?

States a specific verb pair ("Hash string references and write STBL resources") plus the resource and its scope (all 18 locales), which lets an agent tell it apart from read-only siblings like hash_fnv or read_vanilla_tuning.

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 pick this over alternatives such as hash_fnv or batch_create_catalog_overrides, no prerequisites, and no statement about where the files land or what happens if they already exist.

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

Deploy Server