track_modTrack or untrack a mod on Nexus Mods by supplying the game domain and mod ID to manage your followed mods list.
Start or stop tracking a mod.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| game | Yes | Game domain name as in site URLs, e.g. "skyrimspecialedition", "fallout4", "stardewvalley" | |
| action | No | track | |
| mod_id | Yes | Mod ID (number in the mod page URL /mods/<id>) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, indicating a non-read-only, non-destructive mutation. The description adds no additional behavioral context (e.g., effects, authentication needs, side effects), but it does not contradict the annotations. Since annotations cover the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate for minimal added value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, clear sentence with zero filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple toggle operation, front-loading the essential action.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool is simple with clear schema and annotations, but the description omits any note about prerequisites (e.g., authentication) or the effect of the operation. For a mutation tool, slightly more context would be helpful, though the minimalism is acceptable for a straightforward action.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 67% with descriptions for game and mod_id, and the action parameter has an enum with a default. The description adds no extra meaning beyond what the schema provides, so it relies on the schema. Baseline of 3 is correct.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the action ('start or stop tracking') and the resource ('a mod'), which is specific and unambiguous. However, it does not distinguish this from siblings like get_tracked_mods or endorse_mod beyond the basic action, so it lacks explicit differentiation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. It simply states the action without context on choosing track vs untrack or when to call it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.