Warcraft 3 MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

List placed doodads

wc3_list_doodads

Lists preplaced doodads and destructables in a Warcraft III map file with details such as index, editorId, type code, position, angle, scale, variation, and life. Optionally filter by type code.

Instructions

List preplaced doodads/destructables in war3map.doo with index, editorId, type code, position, angle, scale, variation, life. Optionally filter by type. Use index/editorId with wc3_modify_doodad / wc3_delete_doodad.

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>"
    },
    "name": "wc3_list_doodads"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mapPath`	Yes	Absolute path to the .w3x/.w3m map file
`type`	No	Only list this 4-char type code

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool lists preplaced doodads without mutation. It could mention read-only nature and error handling, but the listed output fields provide good transparency.

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 sentences efficiently cover purpose, output, and follow-up actions. No fluff, each sentence earns its place.

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?

Given no output schema, the description lists all returned fields (index, editorId, type code, etc.), making it complete enough for a listing tool. It could explicitly mention the output format (e.g., list of objects), but the listed fields suffice.

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 100%, but the description adds meaning by explaining the 'type' parameter is a 4-char type code and listing the output fields, which aids agent understanding beyond the schema.

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 tool lists preplaced doodads/destructables with specific attributes and optional filtering. It distinguishes from siblings like wc3_list_units by specifying the resource (war3map.doo) and attributes.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description explicitly tells the agent to use the returned index/editorId with wc3_modify_doodad or wc3_delete_doodad, providing clear integration context. It doesn't explicitly state when not to use, but the use case is implied.

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