Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Galgame MCP

Galgame MCP

by YeXuanHs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

archive_pack

Create an archive in formats like XP3 from a set of files, with options for version and compression.

Instructions

Create an archive using a native writer.

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": {
      "input": "<input>",
      "output": "<output>"
    },
    "name": "archive_pack"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYes
formatNoxp3
outputYes
versionNo
compress_indexNo
compress_contentsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

D1.9/5.0
Behavior1/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It merely says 'Create an archive' without mentioning side effects, permissions, format handling, or error conditions. This is insufficient for a tool that likely creates files.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single short sentence, making it concise in length. However, it is under-specified and adds little beyond the tool name, so while structure is acceptable, the content is too minimal to be highly effective.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness1/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With six parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this description is completely inadequate. It does not explain the archive format, the role of the 'native writer', or the constraints on parameters, leaving the agent without essential context for correct invocation.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters1/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description mentions none of the six parameters. It does not explain what 'input', 'output', 'format', 'version', 'compress_index', or 'compress_contents' mean, nor does it add any usage hints beyond the schema's raw names and defaults.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose3/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear action ('Create an archive') but the qualifier 'using a native writer' is vague and does not specify what kind of archive or what differentiates it from sibling tools like xp3_pack or archive_unpack. It provides a basic verb+resource but lacks specificity.

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?

The description gives no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Among numerous sibling tools for archiving and packing, there is no mention of preferred contexts, prerequisites, or exclusions.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools