Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Galgame MCP

Galgame MCP

by YeXuanHs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

vnt_proxy_subtitle_parse

Parse SRT, ASS, or SSA subtitle cues from files or text, optionally filtering by timestamp (at_ms) to extract active dialogue for visual novel localization.

Instructions

Parse SRT (VNTextProxy) or ASS/SSA Dialogue cues; optional at_ms filter.

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": "vnt_proxy_subtitle_parse"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathNo
textNo
at_msNoReturn active cues at this timestamp
formatNo
encodingNoutf-8
strip_overridesNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
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 of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the at_ms filter but does not explain input selection (path vs text), return format, error handling, or the effects of encoding and strip_overrides. This is insufficient for a tool with no annotation support.

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 concise sentence with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the verb and includes the most important qualifier (at_ms filter), making every word earn its place.

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 6 parameters and no output schema or annotations, the description is too brief. It omits critical operational details such as how to provide input (path vs text), the output structure, encoding behavior, and override stripping, making it incomplete for reliable invocation.

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 description coverage is only 17%, so the description must compensate. It clarifies the format enum (SRT/ASS/SSA) and at_ms filter, but fails to explain the relationship between path and text, the encoding parameter, or strip_overrides. Several parameters remain ambiguous.

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 action ('Parse') and resource ('SRT (VNTextProxy) or ASS/SSA Dialogue cues'), with an optional timestamp filter (at_ms). This distinguishes it from other vnt_* tools, as no sibling tool performs subtitle parsing.

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?

The description implies usage for parsing subtitle files but does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or any exclusions. The purpose is clear from the context, but there is no explicit when/when-not guidance.

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