Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
sims4-tc-mcp

sims4-tc-mcp

by SomeoneToldJotaroDolphins-AreGood
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

extract_package_resource

Extracts a single resource by TGI from a Sims 4 .package file and decodes it as XML, STBL, SimData, or catalog data for inspection.

Instructions

Extract one resource by TGI and decode it (XML/STBL/SimData/catalog).

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": {
      "package_path": "<package_path>",
      "tgi": "<tgi>"
    },
    "name": "extract_package_resource"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
tgiYes
output_pathNo
package_pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that extraction includes decoding into XML/STBL/SimData/catalog, but says nothing about permissions, whether output_path writes a file or affects state, error behavior for malformed TGIs, or what is returned.

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 definition is a single compact sentence with no wasted wording and the key action and scope are front-loaded. Nothing in it is redundant or structurally confusing.

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 three-parameter tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, this is too thin. It should explain package_path, output_path behavior, and the return or file-writing semantics to be sufficient for correct invocation.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters. The description adds some meaning for tgi by saying it identifies one resource, but it does not explain package_path or output_path, including whether output_path is optional, creates a file, or defaults to returning decoded data.

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 and resource: "Extract one resource by TGI" and names the decode formats XML/STBL/SimData/catalog. It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly contrast itself with siblings like inspect_package or build_package.

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?

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no alternatives named. The phrase "one resource by TGI" implies usage when a TGI is known, but an agent gets no direction on choosing this over inspect_package or build_package.

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