Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Galgame MCP

Galgame MCP

by YeXuanHs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

krdevui_sig_inspect

Inspect executable files for Kirikiri engine signatures to identify engine type and locate embedded XP3 archives for localization.

Instructions

Locate Kirikiri EXE marks (OPT_EMBED / CORE_SIG / RELEASE_SIG / XP3).

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "krdevui_sig_inspect"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'Locate' without explaining whether this is a read-only scan, what the output format is, or if it modifies the file. The lack of detail about behavior beyond the basic action leaves significant opacity.

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, densely packed sentence that lists the specific marks to locate. No unnecessary words, and it is front-loaded with the action and target. It earns its place despite its brevity.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description must explain what 'locate' returns (e.g., offsets, presence). It does not, leaving a critical gap. The simplicity of the tool reduces the burden but does not eliminate the need to specify return value or behavior.

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 does not mention the sole parameter 'path' at all. It fails to clarify that the path should point to a Kirikiri EXE file, leaving the parameter semantics entirely to inference from the tool name and description.

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's function: locating specific Kirikiri EXE marks (OPT_EMBED / CORE_SIG / RELEASE_SIG / XP3). The verb 'Locate' is specific and the resource is well-defined, distinguishing it from siblings like krdevui_sig_has_signature (which checks existence) and krdevui_sig_sign (which creates signatures).

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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It neither states the typical scenario nor mentions any exclusions or prerequisites. Without this context, an agent cannot decide between krdevui_sig_inspect and related signature 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