Change the game's time scale by setting a speed multiplier (1.0 normal, 0.5 slow, 2.0 fast) to control gameplay pacing for debugging or modding.
Set the game speed (time scale)
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| speed | Yes | Speed multiplier (1.0 = normal, 0.5 = half speed, 2.0 = double speed) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does 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 only states the action and 'time scale'; it does not mention whether the change is persistent, whether zero or negative values are allowed, whether a running game is required, or how the change affects gameplay. The parameter examples are useful but are already in the schema.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler. The parenthetical 'time scale' adds useful semantic context without redundancy.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter setter with full schema coverage, the essential invocation data is present. However, with no annotations and no output schema, the description leaves behavioral gaps such as valid range, persistence, and prerequisites, making it minimally viable but not rich.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the parameter description already explains the multiplier semantics clearly. The description adds only the phrase 'time scale', which does not materially extend the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Uses a specific verb ('Set') plus a clear resource ('game speed') and clarifies the meaning with 'time scale'. No sibling tool overlaps this capability, so an agent can distinguish it immediately without opening the schema.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The invocation context is self-evident: use this tool when the game's time scale needs to be changed. There are no speed-related sibling tools, so the absence of explicit exclusions is not a meaningful gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.