Warcraft 3 MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Read the string table

wc3_read_strings

Reads string table from Warcraft III map files, returning a map of TRIGSTR identifiers to their text values such as unit names, quest text, and tooltips.

Instructions

Read war3map.wts as a { id: text } map. Many map fields are stored as TRIGSTR_### references into this table (map/unit names, quest text, tooltips, …).

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_read_strings"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mapPath`	Yes	Absolute path to the .w3x/.w3m map file

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It correctly indicates a read operation and describes the output format. It does not mention any destructive behavior, rate limits, or authentication needs, but for a simple read tool, the transparency is adequate.

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 extremely concise: two sentences, no wasted words. It front-loads the purpose and immediately provides valuable context about TRIGSTR references.

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 the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema, no annotations), the description covers the purpose and output format adequately. It explains why the tool exists (resolving TRIGSTR references), though it could detail the return structure slightly more.

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% (one parameter documented in schema). The description does not add additional parameter meaning beyond the schema's 'Absolute path to the map file', so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 reads war3map.wts and returns a map of id to text, distinguishing it from siblings like wc3_set_string which writes. It also explains the context of TRIGSTR references, making the purpose specific and clear.

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?

While the description implies usage for resolving TRIGSTR references, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool instead of alternatives, nor does it provide any 'when not to use' guidance. Lacks explicit exclusions or alternative tool mentions.

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