Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Galgame MCP

Galgame MCP

by YeXuanHs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

kagconfig_list_keys

Lists known Config.tjs keys with types, quote modes, and Form1 read/write coverage to aid in KAGConfigEX2 configuration.

Instructions

List known Config.tjs keys from KAGConfigEX2 Form1/Form2 (types, quote modes, Form1 r/w coverage).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "kagconfig_list_keys"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the tool's read-only nature ('List') and specifies the scope (keys from Form1/Form2) and the kind of output (types, quote modes, r/w coverage). It does not describe potential side effects, but for a listing tool this is sufficient.

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 a single, front-loaded sentence that immediately states the action and object. Every word adds value, with no filler or repetition.

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?

For a simple, parameterless tool with no output schema, the description adequately explains what the tool lists and what aspects are included. It could go a step further by mentioning the output format, but the given details cover the essential purpose and scope.

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

Parameters4/5

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

There are zero parameters, so the description needs no parameter details. The description adds meaning by clarifying the domain (KAGConfigEX2) and the output contents, which is useful context beyond the empty schema.

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 verb ('List'), the resource ('known Config.tjs keys from KAGConfigEX2 Form1/Form2'), and the specific aspects covered ('types, quote modes, Form1 r/w coverage'). It distinguishes itself from siblings like kagconfig_load or kagconfig_set by indicating a read-only enumeration of known keys.

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?

Usage is implied: use this tool to list known Config.tjs keys. However, there is no explicit when-to-use vs alternatives or any mention of conditions like needing a loaded config. The sibling names (kagconfig_summarize, kagconfig_load) suggest alternatives, but the description does not address them.

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