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

sims4-tc-mcp

by SomeoneToldJotaroDolphins-AreGood
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

search_game_python_api

Search decompiled Maxis Python classes, methods, and docstrings to find game API signatures and usage for Sims 4 script modding.

Instructions

Search decompiled Maxis Python classes, methods and docstrings.

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_game_python_api"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, yet it says nothing about matching semantics (substring, fuzzy, regex?), case sensitivity, what a result entry contains, or how paging behaves. For a read-only search tool this is thin but not contradictory.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity comes partly from omitting information rather than from tight writing.

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?

No annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters mean the description should compensate with matching behavior and result shape, and it does not. An agent knows the domain of the search but not how to compose a query or interpret the response.

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% for both parameters. The description never mentions what 'query' accepts (bare name, qualified path, docstring text?) or what 'limit' controls and its default of 25, leaving the agent to infer both from bare field names.

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 ('Search') and a specific resource ('decompiled Maxis Python classes, methods and docstrings'), which clearly separates it from tuning-oriented siblings like search_vanilla_tuning. It stops short of naming any alternative explicitly.

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 guidance on when to reach for this tool versus the tuning or package-inspection siblings, and no statement of prerequisites or exclusions. An agent must guess that this is the right tool for Python-source lookups rather than tuning-data lookups.

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