Beat Saber Modding Tools MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

build_mod

Builds Beat Saber mods using dotnet or MSBuild, returning diagnostics, output path, and timings; optionally packages BeatMods zips and deploys plugins into the game.

Instructions

Build a mod with dotnet (SDK-style) or MSBuild.exe (legacy). Returns diagnostics, target path and timings. Set package=true to also create the BeatMods zip and deploy=true to copy into the game.

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>"
    },
    "name": "build_mod"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`deploy`	No
`prefer`	No	auto
`target`	No	Build
`package`	No
`project`	Yes
`restore`	No
`timeout`	No
`game_dir`	No
`properties`	No
`configuration`	No	Debug
`no_incremental`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=false, openWorld=true, destructive=false. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses the return contents (diagnostics, target path, timings) and the side effects of package=true (creates the BeatMods zip) and deploy=true (copies into the game). It says nothing about failure modes, timeout behavior, or whether deploy overwrites existing files.

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?

Three short sentences with no filler, and the core capability is front-loaded. The middle sentence on return values is slightly redundant given an output schema exists, but it is brief enough not to be wasteful.

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?

An output schema and annotations are present, lowering the burden, but with 11 parameters at 0% schema coverage the description leaves most invocation knobs undocumented. For a build tool with an openWorldHint and a game-copying side effect, the definition is thinner than the tool's complexity warrants.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0% across 11 parameters, so the description must carry the semantic load and it only covers two of them (package, deploy) plus a loose nod to prefer via the dotnet/MSBuild mention. Target, configuration, restore, no_incremental, timeout, properties, and game_dir are left entirely unexplained.

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?

The description uses a concrete verb (build) on a concrete resource (a mod) and names both supported backends (dotnet SDK-style vs MSBuild.exe legacy). It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like package_mod, deploy_mod, or build_environment, though the flag-based hints imply overlap.

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?

It implicitly tells the agent that packaging and deployment can be folded into this call via package=true and deploy=true, which is useful routing information. However, it never states when to use this tool instead of package_mod or deploy_mod, nor any prerequisites (e.g. a game directory being set) for the deploy path.

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