Runs the installed N64Recomp CLI with an authorized config to generate output and diagnostics for Nintendo 64 ROM recompilation, without claiming a PS2 port.
Run the installed N64Recomp CLI with an authorized config. Returns generated output and diagnostics; it never claims a PS2 port.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| apply | No | ||
| romPath | Yes | ||
| outputDir | Yes | ||
| configPath | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It usefully mentions external CLI execution and diagnostics, but omits filesystem writes, the effect and default of apply, whether a dry run is supported, overwrite behavior, failure handling, and any safety or authorization requirements beyond the vague config phrase.
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?
The description is compact and front-loads the concrete action and CLI name. Its scope qualifier is awkwardly phrased, but there is little redundant wording; the larger problem is missing substance rather than excessive length.
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 compiler-like execution tool with four undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, this is not complete enough for reliable invocation. The opaque apply flag and missing side-effect, prerequisite, output-location, and sibling-routing details are substantial gaps.
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 0%, and the description only indirectly adds meaning to configPath by calling it authorized. It provides no guidance on ROM or output path requirements and leaves the potentially behavior-changing apply flag entirely unexplained.
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?
The description clearly identifies the operation as running the installed N64Recomp CLI and mentions generated output and diagnostics. However, it does not explain what recompilation produces, and the statement that it "never claims a PS2 port" only broadly distinguishes it from the PS2-oriented siblings.
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?
Requiring an "authorized config" supplies an implied prerequisite, and the PS2 statement sets a scope boundary. It does not explain what authorized means, when recompilation is appropriate, or whether to use siblings such as decomp_config_validate, binary_translate, or generate_ps2_project first or instead.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.