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

sims4-tc-mcp

by SomeoneToldJotaroDolphins-AreGood
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

query_tdesc_schema

Retrieves the tunable schema and starter XML for a specified Sims 4 tuning class, enabling modders to build and validate custom tuning definitions.

Instructions

Return the tunable schema + starter XML for a tuning class.

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": {
      "class_name": "<class_name>"
    },
    "name": "query_tdesc_schema"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
class_nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

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 implies a read-only lookup by saying 'Return,' but does not state error behavior for unknown classes, output format details beyond 'starter XML,' or any permission/rate-limit considerations.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The verb and returned artifacts appear immediately, making it easy to scan.

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 description states the returned artifacts adequately. However, it omits the expected class_name format and any indication of failure behavior, which are the main remaining gaps.

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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate for the lone 'class_name' parameter. Saying 'for a tuning class' clarifies the parameter's meaning, but it gives no expected naming convention, format, or example, leaving ambiguity about what value to supply.

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 uses a specific verb ('Return') and names the exact resources: the tunable schema and starter XML for a tuning class. It is clearly distinguishable from search/read vanilla tuning tools by the 'schema + starter XML' output, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative.

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 mention of when not to use this tool versus siblings such as read_vanilla_tuning or search_vanilla_tuning. Usage is only implied by the returned artifacts.

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