Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Warcraft 3 MCP Server

Warcraft 3 MCP Server

by YElwiddi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Delete doodad(s)

wc3_delete_doodad

Delete doodads from a Warcraft 3 map by editor ID, index, or type and save the map.

Instructions

Remove the doodad(s) matched by editorId, index, or type. 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>",
      "select": "<select>"
    },
    "name": "wc3_delete_doodad"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
mapPathYesAbsolute path to the .w3x/.w3m map file
selectYesWhich doodad(s) — provide one of editorId/index/type
outPathNoOutput 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.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries full burden. It states 'Saves the map' but does not disclose irreversibility, error handling, or behavior when no doodad matches. No mention of return format or side effects beyond saving.

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 concise sentences with no redundant words. The action and criteria are front-loaded, making it easy to scan.

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?

Despite low complexity, the description lacks detail on return values, error conditions, selection behavior when multiple doodads match, and prerequisites. A more complete description would include these for a destructive tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the description adds minimal value beyond restating the select parameter's purpose. It does not clarify constraints like the nested object structure or default behavior for outPath, but the schema covers that.

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 action (Remove), the resource (doodad(s)), and the matching criteria (editorId, index, or type). It distinguishes from siblings like wc3_modify_doodad and wc3_delete_unit, and includes a side effect (saves the map).

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 over alternatives like wc3_modify_doodad or wc3_place_doodad. The description implies usage for deletion but does not state when not to use it or mention prerequisites.

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