Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
MiSTerClaw

MiSTerClaw

by catallo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Go
Remote

mister_cfg_read

Read the current CFG file for the running core or game. Returns raw hex data and decoded option values such as Aspect Ratio. Manages per-game/core settings stored as bit fields.

Instructions

Read the current CFG file for the running core/game. Returns the raw hex data and decoded option values (e.g. 'Aspect Ratio = Original'). CFG files store per-game/core settings as bit fields.

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": "mister_cfg_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
coreNoCore name. If omitted, uses the currently loaded core.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that it returns raw hex and decoded values, which is appropriate for a read tool. However, no annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does not mention idempotency, rate limits, or error cases (e.g., no core loaded). Adequate but not detailed.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no wasted words. Front-loaded with action and returns, then context. Efficient and clear.

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 description explains what the tool returns (raw hex and decoded options) and the nature of CFG files. For a simple read tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, this is largely sufficient. Minor gap: no mention of what happens if no core is loaded (schema says 'if omitted, uses currently loaded core', but the description could reinforce that).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema covers the single parameter 'core' with a clear description. The tool description adds context about CFG files being bit fields but does not enhance parameter semantics beyond the schema. With 100% schema coverage, baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reads the current CFG file, specifies it returns raw hex data and decoded option values with an example. It distinguishes from the sibling write tool (mister_cfg_write) by focusing on reading, and uses specific verb 'Read' and resource 'CFG file'.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description implies usage for reading config settings but does not explicitly state when to use vs alternatives (e.g., write tool) or provide prerequisites. No guidance on when not to use.

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