Skip to main content
Glama
covalschi

dayz-agentic-modding-mcp

world_action

Execute a mod-defined action on the server to test its Can() gate, returning a verdict after it ends or is refused.

Instructions

Run a mod's own action through the engine's gate, on the server.

action_class is the action's script class name. There is deliberately no verb dictionary: the same word means different things in a mod depending on context, so applicability is decided by the ACTION'S OWN Can() -- and its refusal is a meaningful test result, not a tool failure. The distinguishable refusals, classified in the mod before the engine is touched: the manager is busy; the player is already acting; the player is sprinting; the action class is unknown; and "the action's own Can() said no" -- the last one being the answer this tool exists to produce.

target_class names the config class of the object to aim at (resolved to the first match near the player); many actions take no target and it can be omitted. subject optionally names a Man-derived entity class to act AS instead of the connected player -- a diagnostic escape hatch, because a spawned survivor owns an action manager while not being counted as a player.

"Accepted" is not success: the engine can drop an accepted action one frame later without clearing it. The mod therefore holds the command running until the manager actually releases the action, and any failure path releases it too -- otherwise that player could never act again for the rest of the session. Expect an answer only after the action has genuinely ended; a stuck action fails by the mod's own 20s watchdog, with the release noted in the detail.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
posNo
radiusNo
subjectNo
timeoutNo
action_classYes
target_classNo

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 and excels: it reveals that 'Accepted' is not success, the engine may drop an action, the mod holds the command until release, failure paths release too, and there is a 20s watchdog. This gives an agent a precise mental model of the asynchronous behavior and failure modes.

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?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, parameter semantics, behavioral nuances, and failure handling in a logical, front-loaded structure. There is no fluff or repetition; the density is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and missing parameter explanations, the description is highly informative for the core semantics but incomplete for three parameters. The output schema exists, so return values needn't be described, but the undocumented pos/radius/timeout leave a gap in complete understanding.

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?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains action_class, target_class, and subject in detail, but provides no meaning for pos, radius, or timeout. These three parameters are entirely undocumented, leaving an agent guessing about their purpose and format.

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 opens with a clear, specific verb-resource pair: 'Run a mod's own action through the engine's gate, on the server.' It distinguishes itself from siblings like world_spawn or world_exec by focusing exclusively on invoking mod-defined actions, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 clear context: it explains how applicability is determined by the action's own Can() method, that no verb dictionary exists, and when target_class and subject may be omitted. It doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool, but the context makes it obvious this is the only bridge for mod actions.

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