Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Galgame MCP

Galgame MCP

by YeXuanHs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

kirikiri_next_patch_stem

Suggest the next patch stem for a Kirikiri game by scanning existing patch folders, optionally using a custom base name.

Instructions

Suggest next patch / patch2 / … or custom base (patch_cn) stem.

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": {
      "game_dir": "<game_dir>"
    },
    "name": "kirikiri_next_patch_stem"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
baseNopatch
game_dirYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must fully disclose behavior. It implies a read-only suggestion operation but does not state whether it scans the game directory, how existing patch files are handled, or what output is produced. Side effects and edge cases are not mentioned.

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, which is compact and front-loaded. However, the brevity hurts clarity, and the use of jargon ('stem') makes it less effective than it could be.

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?

With no output schema and no annotations, the description should provide more context about inputs, outputs, and behavior. It lacks details about the return value, the algorithm for finding the next patch, and how this tool fits into the broader patch workflow. An agent would be uncertain how to use it correctly.

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

Parameters2/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage. The description partially explains the 'base' parameter via the example 'patch_cn' but leaves 'game_dir' unexplained and does not clarify how base is used in the suggestion logic. It does not compensate for the missing schema descriptions.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description says 'Suggest next patch / patch2 / … or custom base (patch_cn) stem' but does not clearly define what a 'stem' is or how the 'next' patch is determined. It uses domain jargon and fails to distinguish itself from sibling tools like kirikiri_list_patch_archives or kirikiri_pack_patch.

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?

There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention workflow context, prerequisites, or why an agent should choose this over related patch tools.

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