Warcraft 3 MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Read a raw file from a WC3 map

wc3_read_file

Extract internal files from Warcraft III map archives as UTF-8 text or base64. Specify map path and internal archive path to retrieve file contents.

Instructions

Extract one internal file as text (utf8) or base64.

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>",
      "internalName": "<internalName>"
    },
    "name": "wc3_read_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mapPath`	Yes	Absolute path to the .w3x/.w3m map file
`internalName`	Yes	Internal archive path, e.g. "war3map.w3i"
`encoding`	No	How to return the bytes	base64

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

C2.9/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description should disclose behavioral traits. It does not state that this is a read-only operation, nor does it mention any side effects, error conditions, or limitations. The only behavior mentioned is the encoding format.

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?

A single sentence that is efficiently front-loaded with the verb 'Extract' and the resource 'internal file'. Every word is necessary; no wasted text.

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?

Given no output schema and no annotations, the description is too minimal. It does not explain what happens on success/failure, the format of the output (e.g., base64 string or decoded text), or constraints like file size. For a file-reading tool, this lacks essential context.

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?

The input schema has 100% description coverage, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds only that the output is text (utf8) or base64, which aligns with the encoding enum. This is baseline value; no extra semantic depth beyond the schema.

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?

The description clearly states it extracts one internal file as text or base64, which conveys the core action. The tool name 'wc3_read_file' matches, and it is distinct from siblings like 'wc3_list_files' which lists files, but no explicit differentiation is given.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. With many sibling tools for reading different aspects (script, strings, terrain, etc.), the description does not help the agent choose correctly.

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