Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Galgame MCP

Galgame MCP

by YeXuanHs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python

xp3_pack

Pack game files into an unencrypted XP3 archive for visual novel localization. Choose archive version and compression for index and contents.

Instructions

Create an unencrypted XP3 archive natively.

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": {
      "input": "<input>",
      "output": "<output>"
    },
    "name": "xp3_pack"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
inputYes
outputYes
versionNo
compress_indexNo
compress_contentsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
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 of disclosing behavioral traits. It mentions 'unencrypted' and 'natively' but does not explain side effects, overwrite behavior, required input formats, or any limitations. This is insufficient for a creation tool.

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 with no filler words, making it concise and well-structured. However, it is under-specified, so it loses a point for being too terse to convey essential context.

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?

For a tool with five parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the one-line description is minimal. It provides only the core purpose, but lacks information on parameter roles, expected behavior, and edge cases, making it inadequate for reliable tool selection and invocation.

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%, so the description must compensate for the five parameters. It does not mention input, output, version, or compression options at all. Even though parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory, the description adds no semantic value beyond the schema.

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 a specific action ('Create') and resource ('XP3 archive'), with qualifiers 'unencrypted' and 'natively' that add some specificity. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like archive_pack or kirikiri_pack_unencrypted, so it lacks full sibling differentiation.

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 does not mention use cases, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without context for choosing among the many archive/pack tools in the sibling list.

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