Beat Saber Modding Tools MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

generate_manifest

Merge fields into manifest.json, validate against the BSIPA schema, write the file, and embed it as .manifest.json by default while preserving existing fields.

Instructions

Merge fields into manifest.json, validate against the BSIPA schema, write it, and (by default) make sure it is embedded as .manifest.json. Existing fields are preserved.

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": "generate_manifest"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`icon`	No
`misc`	No
`name`	No
`embed`	No
`files`	No
`links`	No
`author`	No
`mod_id`	No
`target`	No
`project`	Yes
`updates`	No
`version`	No
`features`	No
`depends_on`	No
`load_after`	No
`description`	No
`load_before`	No
`plugin_hint`	No
`game_version`	No
`base_manifest`	No
`requires_bsipa`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that the tool validates against the BSIPA schema, writes the manifest, embeds it by default, and preserves existing fields. These are meaningful behavioral details for a mutation tool, though it does not describe failure behavior when validation fails or how existing fields are merged.

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 two tight sentences with the main operation front-loaded and the preservation behavior appended. Every clause adds information, and there is no redundant or filler wording.

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 complex 21-parameter mutation tool with no schema parameter descriptions, the description is too sparse to guide correct invocation. The output schema and annotations reduce some burden, but the description still leaves most input semantics and validation failure behavior undocumented.

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?

With 21 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description should compensate substantially, but it only implicitly covers the embed behavior and refers generically to 'fields.' The roles of project, name, author, version, dependencies, and most other parameters remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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 sequence of actions on a specific resource: merge fields into manifest.json, validate against the BSIPA schema, write it, and embed it by default. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like read_manifest and validate_manifest, which only read or check the manifest.

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?

The description explains what the tool does but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of validate_manifest, read_manifest, or other manifest-related siblings. There are no conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions to help an agent choose between alternatives.

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