Warcraft 3 MCP Server

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Write WC3 map script

wc3_write_script

Replace the map script (war3map.j or war3map.lua) in a .w3x/.w3m file and save the edited map. Specify source path and script content.

Instructions

Replace the map script (war3map.j / war3map.lua) and save. Saves to outPath, or ".edited.w3x" beside the source if omitted.

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>",
      "content": "<content>"
    },
    "name": "wc3_write_script"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`mapPath`	Yes	Absolute path to the source .w3x/.w3m map file
`content`	Yes	New script source text
`outPath`	No	Output map path. Defaults to "<map>.edited.w3x".

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv1.0.0Jun 22, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations provided. Description indicates replacement behavior and output path default, but lacks details on side effects, error handling, or permissions.

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 are concise and front-loaded with the main verb 'Replace', covering essential information without waste.

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 annotations or output schema, the description is fairly complete, explaining purpose and output default. Could mention error behavior.

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 description adds little beyond schema. The default behavior for outPath is explained, but not significantly more.

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 replaces the map script (war3map.j/lua) and saves, specifying the output default. It distinguishes from siblings like wc3_read_script.

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 versus alternatives or prerequisites. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.

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