Skip to main content
Glama
covalschi

dayz-agentic-modding-mcp

server_start

Start the DayZ test server and wait until it is ready. Clears stale bridge state, refuses to boot if the game port is held, and returns a job ID.

Instructions

Start the test server and wait for it to be ready. Returns a job id.

Two things worth knowing before calling, both observable:

It CLEARS THE BRIDGE TRANSPORT first -- the command mailbox and the state file in the -profiles directory are removed before the server is spawned, so no world ever starts against a command or a state document left by an earlier one. Script logs are deliberately left alone; see clear_bridge_transport for why the two are treated differently. A file that could not be removed is reported in bridge_transport_left and on the job, and never fails the boot.

It REFUSES if the game port is already held, naming the pids holding it. A stand is shared -- one machine, one port, one profile directory -- and booting into a held port produces a server that dies during world load with nothing in its own log to say why. If the holder is a server this session started, the hint says to stop it with server_stop. If it is anyone else's, the refusal identifies it (pid and -mod= tail) and offers stopping it as the caller's own act -- the owner authorised stopping a neighbouring stand that blocks a live run -- but this tool never auto-stops a process it did not start.

extra_args appends launch arguments after the fixed ones -- an explicit one-run opt-in, the same pattern as attaching the bridge, not profile surgery. A list of strings, never one string to re-split. Arguments the tool itself owns (-config, -profiles, -port, -mod, -serverMod) are refused: the profile is where those are decided. The extras are recorded in the boot job's summary, so a later reader can see the boot was non-standard. The known use is the engine's action log (-doScriptLogs=1 -logToFile=1), which writes to scriptExt.log -- a file log_verdict never reads, so these flags cannot poison a verdict.

Readiness has two independent signals, and the summary always names which one answered. expect.ready_line appearing in a log written by THIS run says the MOD finished loading. The game port being bound by the pid we spawned says the ENGINE is up and listening -- which needs neither a mod nor a declared line, and is the readiness verdict for a project that declares none (measured on a real stand: bound 16.9s after spawn). With a ready line declared it remains the verdict, since a bound port cannot say a mod loaded; the port is then what tells "the boot failed" apart from "the server is listening and it is the mod's line that never appeared".

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
timeoutNo
extra_argsNo

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 provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it does so thoroughly. It reveals that the tool CLEARS THE BRIDGE TRANSPORT before spawning, reports but never fails on left-behind files, never auto-stops a process it did not start, refuses certain reserved arguments, and resolves readiness from two independent signals while reporting which one answered. This is precisely the hidden behavior an agent needs to predict the side effects of a server boot.

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 description is long, but it is structured and dense: bolded signal words ('CLEARS THE BRIDGE TRANSPORT first', 'REFUSES if the game port is already held') front-load the critical warnings, and each paragraph earns its content. Minor asides like the measured 'bound 16.9s after spawn' provide a useful real-world anchor but could be trimmed if brevity were a priority.

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?

A complex tool with no annotations and only 0% schema description coverage — the description compensates well: cleanup semantics, port-conflict refusal, extra argument rules, log-record behavior, and the dual-signal readiness logic are all covered. The only meaningful gap is the timeout parameter's role and what its expiry implies, which is left entirely to inference.

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 extra_args parameter is exceptionally well described: it must be a list of strings, is appended after fixed arguments, is an explicit one-run opt-in, refuses the tool's own flags, and is recorded in the boot job's summary. However, the timeout parameter (default 420) is never mentioned at all, and schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate — the omission is not covered anywhere.

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 is explicit and compact: 'Start the test server and wait for it to be ready. Returns a job id.' It names the specific verb, the resource, the behavior, and the return contract in one breath. It also clearly distinguishes this tool from its siblings like server_status, server_stop, and world_ready — this is the lifecycle-start action, not an observer.

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 provides real decision points: it 'REFUSES if the game port is already held,' names the pids holding it, and explicitly routes the caller to server_stop when the holder is a server this session started. It also gives the when-not-to-invent pattern for extra_args ('never one string to re-split') and explains that profile surgery belongs elsewhere, not here. It stops short of listing alternatives for every scenario, but the guidance given is concrete and actionable.

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