Beat Saber Modding Tools MCP

by denpadokei

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

game_process_status

Read-only

Check whether Beat Saber.exe is running before deploying, since deploy writes to IPA/Pending while the game is active.

Instructions

Check whether Beat Saber.exe is currently running (deploy writes to IPA/Pending when it is).

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": "game_process_status"
  }
}

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

A4.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

The annotations already establish that this is a safe read-only check, and the description adds the exact process name plus relevant deploy behavior when the process is active. It does not describe return values, but an output schema exists and covers that.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted wording. The parenthetical adds useful context without distracting from the main purpose.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a zero-parameter read-only check with annotations and an output schema, the description is complete enough to call correctly. It identifies the exact process and gives relevant context about deploy interaction.

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?

The tool takes no parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden for the description to carry. The baseline score of 4 applies.

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 states a specific verb and resource: checking whether Beat Saber.exe is currently running. It also adds a distinguishing operational detail that deploy writes to IPA/Pending when the process is running, which helps an agent understand the tool's role.

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?

Usage is clearly implied: this tool is for checking game process status, and the parenthetical explains a deploy-related consequence when the game is running. It does not explicitly say when not to use it or name an alternative, but the context is adequate for a zero-parameter status check.

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