Beat Saber Modding Tools MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

build_environment

Read-only

Detects MSBuild, dotnet, git, and Beat Saber installations and reports setup recommendations to help you prepare a PC modding workflow without Visual Studio.

Instructions

Report the detected MSBuild, dotnet, git and Beat Saber installations plus setup recommendations.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "build_environment"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that this is a detection sweep plus prescriptive setup advice, but says nothing about cost (does it scan the filesystem?), whether it probes external processes, or how missing components are represented.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the four detected components and the recommendation output are enumerated compactly.

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?

With an output schema present and full annotation coverage, the description carries what it must: what is detected and that advice is included. Minor residual gap is whether the report is comprehensive or scoped to the current project/game directory.

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?

Zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; the description correctly implies the tool takes no arguments and that all scoping is internal.

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?

States a specific verb ("Report") and a concrete set of resources (MSBuild, dotnet, git, Beat Saber installations plus setup recommendations), which is a coherent diagnostic aggregate. It is clear on its own but draws no boundary against siblings like get_git_info, detect_game, or game_process_status, which surface overlapping facts.

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?

Usage is only implied: a report of what is detected, plus recommendations, reads as a preflight/troubleshooting check. It never states when to prefer this over the narrower siblings (get_git_info, detect_game) or what to do if a component is missing.

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