MGSV MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

list_additional_sources

Read-onlyIdempotent

Browse supplied repositories, author profiles, and linked documentation, showing cached coverage, revisions, and freshness to support MGSV modding research.

Instructions

List supplied repositories, author profiles, topic discovery and linked documentation, with cached coverage, revisions and freshness.

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": "list_additional_sources"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.3.2Oct 15, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that results carry cached coverage, revisions, and freshness metadata, which is useful context about staleness. It does not mention auth requirements, limits, or how caching is populated.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with the verb first and no filler. The enumeration of resource types is dense but each item earns its place by informing what appears in the result.

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

Completeness4/5

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

The tool has an output schema, so return values need no explanation, and it takes no parameters, so there are no semantic gaps there. Annotations carry the safety profile. The only missing element is differentiation from sibling sources tools, which is minor given the low complexity.

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 takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies. There is nothing for the description to compensate for in 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?

States the verb 'List' and enumerates the resource types returned: supplied repositories, author profiles, topic discovery, and linked documentation. An agent can infer this is a read/list operation over source metadata. It does not, however, distinguish itself from close siblings like repository_source or sync_additional_sources.

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 when-to-use guidance, prerequisites, or exclusions are given. With siblings such as sync_additional_sources and repository_source in the same domain, the agent is left to guess which tool to pick when it wants source information.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.