Returns a sourced workflow for Metal Gear Solid V modding tasks—Lua, textures, models, maps, audio, localization, native code, tooling, or packaging; leave topic empty to list options.
Get a sourced workflow for lua, textures, models, maps, audio, localization, native-code, tool-development or packaging. Empty topic lists choices.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| topic | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered without the description. The description adds that results are 'sourced' and how empty input behaves, but says nothing about the shape or size of the returned workflow.
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?
Two short sentences, both load-bearing: the first defines scope and valid topics, the second defines the empty-input case. Nothing is redundant and the retrieval purpose is front-loaded.
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 read-only, single-optional-parameter retrieval tool with no output schema, the definition covers scope, valid topics and the default case adequately. A brief note on what the workflow contains (steps, source citations, format) would close the remaining gap.
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 single 'topic' parameter has only a default of empty string, so the description must carry the load. It does so by enumerating the nine accepted topic values and explaining the empty-string behavior, which is information found nowhere in the schema.
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?
States a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('a sourced workflow') and enumerates the covered domains, so an agent knows it retrieves guidance rather than raw data. It doesn't explicitly contrast itself with siblings like list_modding_tools or read_wiki_page, leaving some overlap in the adjacent modding/wiki space.
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 closing clause 'Empty topic lists choices' tells the agent how to use the tool in discovery mode, which is real guidance. However, there is no statement of when to prefer this over sibling doc/tool tools or any exclusion, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.