Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Galgame MCP

Galgame MCP

by YeXuanHs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

re_status

Check installed reverse engineering tools and MCP operations to determine readiness for Galgame localization tasks.

Instructions

Show installed/high-end RE tools (Ghidra/IDA/Rizin/x64dbg/…) and MCP ops.

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": "re_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden for behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation via 'Show,' but doesn't disclose potential scanning overhead, output format, or whether it checks local filesystem, registry, etc. This is a significant gap for a tool that could have side effects or require environment inspection.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single sentence that front-loads the verb 'Show.' It's efficient and easy to scan. However, the trailing 'and MCP ops' is vague and somewhat wastes words without adding clarity, preventing a perfect score.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple (no params, no output schema), and the description gives a basic sense of purpose. But it's incomplete regarding what 'MCP ops' refers to and what the output looks like. It's adequate for a minimal status tool but leaves gaps for an agent deciding whether to invoke it.

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?

The tool has zero parameters, and schema coverage is 100% (empty). Per rubric, this is a baseline 4. The description adds no parameter details, but none are needed.

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 tool shows installed/high-end RE tools, identifying a specific verb (show) and resource (tools like Ghidra/IDA/Rizin). It distinguishes from sibling tools like re_install or re_launch. However, 'and MCP ops' is vague and not fully explained, keeping it from a perfect score.

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 explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus the many sibling RE tools. It doesn't say 'check before installing' or mention alternatives. The implied usage is to view status, but without clear context or exclusions, the user/agent cannot determine when this is the right choice.

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