Beat Saber Modding Tools MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

add_item_template

Add official Beat Saber mod item templates—harmony patches, BSML files, BSML view controllers, or MonoBehaviours—to an existing project, creating files and updating the .csproj references.

Instructions

Add an official item template to an existing project: harmony-patch, bsml-file, bsml-viewcontroller or monobehaviour. Creates the files and updates the .csproj (Compile/EmbeddedResource with DependentUpon).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "project": "<project>",
      "template": "<template>",
      "name": "<name>"
    },
    "name": "add_item_template"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	Yes
`force`	No
`project`	Yes
`game_dir`	No
`template`	Yes
`directory`	No
`namespace`	No
`templates_dir`	No
`add_references`	No
`add_to_project`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations declare not-readOnly and not-destructive, and the description adds meaningful detail that the tool writes files and modifies the .csproj with Compile/EmbeddedResource entries and DependentUpon. It does not explain what force does or how existing entries are handled on collision, but it goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

Two tight sentences; the primary action is front-loaded and the side effects follow. No filler, though the template list could be formatted more scannably.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a 10-parameter mutation tool with 0% schema description coverage, the description leaves most parameters undefined, including the important behavioral switch force and the toggles add_references/add_to_project. Even though an output schema exists, an agent would have to guess what most arguments do.

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% – none of the ten parameters carry descriptions – so the description carries extra burden, yet it never mentions force, add_references, add_to_project, game_dir, namespace, directory or templates_dir. It only implies that project, template and name drive the operation. That leaves substantial gaps, though at least the template enumeration is identified.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Specific verb + resource: add an item template, with the four supported template kinds enumerated (harmony-patch, bsml-file, bsml-viewcontroller, monobehaviour) and its side effects on files and .csproj. It doesn't explicitly differentiate from sibling add_game_references or create_project, but the resource is distinctive enough that an agent can distinguish it.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternatives. The agent can infer it belongs to the template-scaffolding workflow (perhaps paired with list_templates), but the description never states prerequisites, which template to pick, or when to use create_project instead.

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