Skip to main content
Glama
covalschi

dayz-agentic-modding-mcp

world_spawn

Create a DayZ item on the ground, in a player's hands, or in inventory, with optional position, quantity, and timeout, to verify item presence during mod testing.

Instructions

Create an item: on the ground, in the player's hands, or in their inventory.

where is "ground" (default), "hands" or "inventory". A ground spawn takes pos as "x y z" and falls back to the player's own position when it is omitted; with neither a position nor a player, the mod says so in words rather than doing nothing.

Ground spawns are created with ECE_PLACE_ON_SURFACE and ECE_NOLIFETIME. Without the second flag the item lives by the lifetime in its own config and the central economy is free to remove it partway through a check -- which turns "my test item vanished" into a hunt through the mod under test. The flag is the mod's, not this tool's; it is named here because it is the reason a spawned item can be trusted to still be there a minute later.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
posNo
whereNoground
timeoutNo
quantityNo
class_nameYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
okYes
dataNo
hintNo
errorNo
Behavior4/5

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

No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behavioral traits: ground spawns are created with ECE_PLACE_ON_SURFACE and ECE_NOLIFETIME, explaining why an item persists and why the flag matters. It also describes the fallback when neither position nor player is given (the mod says so in words) and the consequence of omitting the lifetime flag. This is substantial transparency for a mutation tool, though it does not cover every hypothetical side effect.

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 a single well-ordered paragraph: purpose first, then parameter details, then flag rationale. It is dense but each sentence contributes value; no filler. The front-loading makes the primary function immediately clear. It is slightly long but justified by the technical context needed for correct use.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The description covers the main placement and flag behavior, which is crucial for correct invocation. However, it omits the semantics of `timeout` and `quantity`, both of which could significantly affect results. An output schema exists, so return values may be documented there, but the parameter omissions leave gaps. Given the 5-parameter complexity and 0% schema coverage, the description needs to explain all parameters; it does not.

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?

With schema description coverage at 0%, the description must clarify parameters. It fully explains `where` (enumerating options and default) and `pos` (format and fallback), adding real meaning. However, it does not address `class_name` (the required parameter), `timeout`, or `quantity`, which remain opaque despite their presence in the schema. The description partially compensates but leaves key parameters unexplained.

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 precise verb–resource pair, 'Create an item,' and specifies three distinct placement contexts (ground, hands, inventory). This is specific enough to distinguish it from sibling world_* tools like world_set or world_exec, which target different actions (state changes, commands). No ambiguity remains 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 Guidelines3/5

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

The description provides usage context for the `where` parameter (ground, hands, inventory) and the behavior of `pos` (including fallback), which helps an agent decide placement. However, it never frames this tool against alternatives or states exclusions, e.g., 'use world_exec for commands instead.' The guidance is implicit rather than explicit, but the parameter-level detail does inform usage choices.

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