GMA2 MCP

set_user_variable

Set a user-specific variable in grandMA2 console. Supports numeric, text, or delete values, with optional input dialog for text.

Instructions

Set a user-profile-specific variable (SetUserVar).

Args:
    var_name: Variable name (should start with $)
    value: Numeric, text, or None to delete the variable
    input_dialog: If True (string values only), prompt with an input dialog

Returns:
    str: Operation result message

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "var_name": "<var_name>"
    },
    "name": "set_user_variable"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`var_name`	Yes
`value`	No
`input_dialog`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 21, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

The description discloses that setting value to None deletes the variable and mentions the input dialog behavior. However, it does not address other behavioral aspects like persistence, permissions, or error handling. No annotations are provided to supplement.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is structured with Args and Returns sections, but includes some redundant technical details (e.g., 'SetUserVar'). It is adequately short but could be more concise.

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?

For a simple setter tool with 3 parameters and an output schema (returning a string), the description covers the core behavior, including deletion and dialog. It does not mention persistence or scope, but is reasonably complete.

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?

Given 0% schema description coverage, the description adds meaningful context: var_name should start with '$, value can be numeric, text, or None, and input_dialog triggers a prompt. This goes beyond the raw schema types.

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?

The description clearly states the tool sets a user-profile-specific variable, using the verb 'set' and specifying the scope. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools like 'set_variable' or 'add_user_variable', which are contextually similar.

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 guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for user-specific variables, but lacks explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use instructions.

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

Deploy Server