Warcraft 3 MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Modify region(s)

wc3_modify_region

Modify region properties (bounds, name, weather, sound, color) in a Warcraft III map by specifying region by ID, name, or index.

Instructions

Change bounds/name/weather/sound/color on the region(s) matched by id, name, or index. 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>",
      "set": "<set>"
    },
    "name": "wc3_modify_region"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mapPath`	Yes	Absolute path to the .w3x/.w3m map file
`select`	Yes	Which region(s) to change — provide one of id/name/index
`set`	Yes	Fields to change
`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?

Without annotations, the description correctly notes that the tool saves the map, a key behavioral trait. However, it does not disclose potential side effects like irreversible changes or permission needs, leaving gaps for a mutation tool.

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 two sentences, front-loads the core action, and contains no unnecessary words. Every part contributes to understanding.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is adequate but minimal. It covers the main purpose and mentions saving but lacks details on error handling, multi-region behavior, or value constraints beyond the schema.

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 baseline is 3. The description enumerates the modifiable fields and selection criteria but adds little beyond what the schema already describes for each parameter.

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 it modifies region properties (bounds, name, weather, sound, color) and saves the map, distinguishing it from sibling tools like add_region, delete_region, and list_regions.

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?

The description explains what the tool does but does not explicitly state when to use it versus alternatives or mention prerequisites like map path validity. It implies usage for modifying existing regions but lacks direct guidance.

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