Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Galgame MCP

Galgame MCP

by YeXuanHs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

npa_resolve_scheme

Map an NPA game title or name_key+order_hex to scheme parameters. Provides necessary params for archive handling and script extraction.

Instructions

Resolve an NPA game title (or name_key+order_hex) to scheme params.

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": "npa_resolve_scheme"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryNo
titleNoGame title substring (case-insensitive)
schemeNo
name_keyNo
title_idNo
order_hexNo
scheme_paramsNo
title_id_nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the basic resolution action without disclosing side effects, return behavior, or error handling. There is no contradiction, but also no behavioral detail.

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?

A single sentence, efficient and front-loaded with the key action. However, it is too brief to be fully useful; conciseness crosses into underspecification. The structure is clean but content lacking.

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 8 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description is severely incomplete. It gives no parameter explanations, no return value details, no usage context, and no interaction with sibling tools. This is far below the minimum viable level for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is only 13% (1 of 8 parameters described). The description adds meaning for title and name_key+order_hex, but leaves query, scheme, title_id, scheme_params, and title_id_name unexplained. It does not compensate for the low schema coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description clearly states the action (resolve) and the target (NPA game title or name_key+order_hex) and output (scheme params). It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly targeting NPA, though it doesn't contrast with xp3_resolve_scheme.

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 this tool versus alternatives such as xp3_resolve_scheme or npa_list_schemes. The description implies usage when you have a title or name_key+order_hex, but provides no exclusions or alternative references.

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