sims4-tc-mcp

inspect_package

Lists every TGI entry in a .package file, including resource type, size, and metadata, so you can audit or debug package contents.

Instructions

List every TGI entry in a .package with type, sizes and metadata.

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>"
    },
    "name": "inspect_package"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`package_path`	Yes

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 provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the shape of the result (type, sizes, metadata), which is genuinely useful, but says nothing about whether the operation is read-only, what happens with an invalid or non-.package path, or how large the output can get for a large package.

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?

One front-loaded sentence with no filler; the key scope ('every TGI entry') comes first. 'metadata' is left vague enough that a few words of clarification would have earned the fifth point.

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?

For a simple one-parameter read tool with no output schema, the definition covers what it does and roughly what it returns. It is still missing error behavior and path-format expectations, which matter because the only input is a file path.

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 description coverage is 0% and the single parameter is documented only by the title 'Package Path'. The description implies it points at a .package file but does not state whether it must be absolute, relative to the game data root, or how special characters are handled. Marginal compensation for the coverage gap.

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?

Specific verb and resource: 'List every TGI entry in a .package', plus the fields returned (type, sizes, metadata). An agent can distinguish it from build_package or extract_package_resource by the fact that it only enumerates entries. It stops short of naming a sibling or stating scope limits, so not a 5.

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 when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives (e.g., extract_package_resource for pulling contents, build_package for creating), and no prerequisites. At best the verb 'List' implies a read-only inspection step before extraction, which the agent must infer.

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

Deploy Server