Skip to main content
Glama
covalschi

dayz-agentic-modding-mcp

server_signatures

Read the current DayZ server signature policy or set verifySignatures to a new value, safely editing only the active config file.

Instructions

Read -- or deliberately change -- the stand's signature policy.

With no argument this only reports. With value it writes verifySignatures into the config the profile names as this stand's, and reads it back.

WHY THIS IS ITS OWN TOOL. verifySignatures = 2 makes a stand refuse every client with code 118 and "missing dtain.pbo" -- a vanilla file name that says nothing about signatures, and that has already cost one session a long hunt through byte-identical files. On a local stand the honest fix is usually to turn the check off rather than to sign a throwaway bridge mod, and doing that by hand in somebody's config is worse than doing it here, where the previous value is reported, the file is read back, and nothing else in it is touched.

WHAT KEEPS IT SAFE. It edits exactly one file: machine.stand_root / machine.config, the stand this project already boots, and it refuses a path that resolves outside that root. It refuses while a server is running against that config, because a change the running server will never read is a success message about nothing. And it says which way the setting moved: 0 is off, and the answer says so in words rather than leaving a number.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
valueNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
dataNo
hintNo
errorNo
Behavior5/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full weight. It discloses the read vs. write behavior, the safety check about editing exactly one file within the root, refusal while a server is running, and the output semantics ('says which way in words'). This is exemplary for a mutation tool.

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?

Text is clear and well-organized with headers, but slightly verbose. Some redundancy (e.g., 'has already cost one session a long hunt') adds color but could be trimmed. Still, every paragraph earns its place.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Description covers purpose, behavior, safety constraints, failure modes, and output semantics. Even with an output schema, the description's narrative provides richer context. It's complete for an agent to decide when and how to call it.

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?

Schema has one nullable integer parameter with a default of null meaning no argument; description explains that `value` writes and no argument reads. It doesn't constrain valid integers beyond 0/1/2 implied, but that's fine. Schema coverage is 0% so description compensates well.

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 or writes the `verifySignatures` setting in a server config, and explicitly positions it as a distinct tool with rationale. It distinguishes itself from siblings like server_start/stop by focusing on policy editing rather than lifecycle management.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

The description explains when to use it (no argument = read; with value = write), and provides a strong 'WHY THIS IS ITS OWN TOOL' section explaining the failure mode and why using this tool is preferred over manual edits. It doesn't explicitly name an alternative, but the rationale implies it's the right tool for signature-check toggling.

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