Skip to main content
Glama

Name a switch

set_switch_name

Set a game switch's editor name in System.json by ID, automatically expanding the switches array when the ID exceeds its current size.

Instructions

Set the editor name of a game switch in System.json (e.g. switch 5 = 'Opened Chest'). The switches array grows if the id is beyond its current size.

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": {
      "id": "<id>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "set_switch_name"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
idYesSwitch id (1-based)
nameYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.5.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses a non-obvious side effect — the switches array grows when the id exceeds its current size — and that the write targets System.json. It does not say whether existing names are overwritten, whether a changeset/commit is required for persistence, or what the response looks like.

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?

Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and location, followed by the edge-case behavior. Zero waste; the example earns its place by making the name semantics concrete.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple two-parameter mutation with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the main things an agent needs: target file, name semantics, and array-growth behavior. Missing persistence/changeset semantics is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 50% (only 'id' is documented as 1-based). The description compensates for the undocumented 'name' parameter by clarifying it is the editor/display name, with the 'switch 5 = Opened Chest' example, and explains id growth for out-of-range values.

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 and resource ('Set the editor name of a game switch'), names the storage location (System.json), and gives a concrete example. The noun 'switch' distinguishes it from the sibling set_variable_name, though no sibling is named explicitly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is implied by the resource and location, but there is no guidance on when to prefer this over set_variable_name, update_system, or whether changes need a changeset to be committed. An agent can infer the use case but receives no exclusions or alternatives.

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