Skip to main content
Glama
covalschi

dayz-agentic-modding-mcp

asset_check

Checks models and textures in a mod for build integrity, identifying issues like dangling references, lost transparency, or mismatched artifacts, and suggests concrete fixes.

Instructions

Judge the models and textures a mod already ships. Builds nothing.

Needs no DayZ Tools and no build: every check reads a file that is already on the disk, because the tools that produce these files are structurally unable to report failure. Answers in milliseconds.

Twelve checks (C1-C12). Four of them refuse, and this call fails when one does: a built model is there and is an ODOL, no reference escapes the mod, a material was actually inlined, and nothing already binarized is offered back to binarize. The rest warn -- dangling references, an rvmat pointing into another mod, a transparency lost to DXT1 (C7), an animation that never reached the artifact, a model.cfg that is not the one the artifact was built from, and a structural fingerprint that no longer matches what the last build deployed. Every finding says what to DO about it.

model narrows it to one file, relative to the mod's directory. Files the packer will drop (build.exclude) are not judged: a refusal about a file that never enters the pbo is a refusal about nothing.

A texture is judged against the PNG it came from -- beside it or at the same place under build.project_root -- because a legitimately opaque texture and one whose transparency was destroyed are identical in the output alone.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
modNo
modelNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
dataNo
hintNo
errorNo
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers exceptionally. It discloses failure modes ('four of them refuse, and this call fails when one does'), specific warnings (C7, animation to artifact, fingerprint mismatches), edge cases ('build.exclude' files not judged), and the PNG comparison logic. Nothing about this tool's behavior is hidden.

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?

The main purpose is front-loaded and every sentence earns its place for a tool of this complexity. The twelve-check enumeration, however, is delivered as a dense paragraph where a more scannable list format would improve parseability. The description is rich but could be condensed.

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 tool with no annotations and substantial complexity, the description is remarkably complete: purpose, performance, side effects, failure modes, edge cases, and parameter hints are all addressed. The output schema covers return values. The lone gap is the 'mod' parameter semantics and explicit sibling differentiation, keeping it from a 5.

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?

With schema coverage at 0%, the description had to compensate, and it does meaningfully for 'model' — 'narrows it to one file, relative to the mod's directory' — adding real semantic value. However, the 'mod' parameter is never explicitly described, either in the schema or the tool description, leaving the agent to infer its purpose from context.

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 opening sentence 'Judge the models and textures a mod already ships' pairs a specific verb with a clear resource, and 'Builds nothing' cleanly separates it from build/convert siblings. The enumeration of twelve distinct checks (C1-C12) with concrete examples (DXT1 transparency, ODOL references, rvmat pointers) leaves zero ambiguity about scope.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description makes clear when this is appropriate: when validating an existing mod's files without building, needing no DayZ Tools, and expecting millisecond responses. However, no sibling alternatives are explicitly named (e.g., mod_lint for code-level linting), so the exclusion logic is left to inference.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/covalschi/dayz-agentic-modding-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server