Warcraft 3 MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Add a camera

wc3_add_camera

Add a camera to a Warcraft III map at specified coordinates with optional settings. The camera becomes usable as gg_cam_ in JASS and saves the map.

Instructions

Add a predefined camera at target (x,y). Unspecified fields use World Editor defaults (distance 1650, aoa 304, fov 70, rotation 90). Usable from JASS as gg_cam_. Saves the map.

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": {
      "mapPath": "<mapPath>",
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "wc3_add_camera"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mapPath`	Yes	Absolute path to the .w3x/.w3m map file
`x`	Yes
`y`	Yes
`name`	No
`rotation`	No
`aoa`	No	Angle of attack (degrees)
`distance`	No
`fov`	No	Field of view (degrees)
`offsetZ`	No
`roll`	No
`outPath`	No	Output map path. Defaults to "<map>.edited.<ext>" beside the source; pass the source path to overwrite in place.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Despite no annotations, the description reveals that unspecified fields use defaults, the camera is accessible via JASS, and the map is saved. However, it omits details about overwrite behavior, error handling, or permissions.

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 description is three concise sentences, each adding essential information: action, defaults, and side effects. No redundant text.

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 tool with 11 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description provides basic context but lacks details on naming rules, coordinate system, and possible errors, making it moderately complete.

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?

With only 36% schema coverage, the description clarifies the meaning of x, y, and provides defaults for distance, aoa, fov, and rotation. It does not explain other parameters like offsetZ, roll, or outPath beyond their names.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the verb 'Add' and the resource 'predefined camera at target (x,y)', distinguishing it from sibling tools like wc3_delete_camera and wc3_read_cameras.

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?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies usage for adding cameras but lacks conditions, prerequisites, or exclusion criteria.

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