Beat Saber Modding Tools MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

get_assembly_info

Read-only

Reads the assembly version from AssemblyInfo.cs or SDK project properties and compares it with the manifest to detect version mismatches in a Beat Saber mod project.

Instructions

Read the assembly version from Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs or SDK project properties and compare it with the manifest.

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": "get_assembly_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`project`	Yes
`configuration`	No		Debug

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.6/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds genuinely new behavioral context by naming the two sources of truth (Properties/AssemblyInfo.cs vs SDK project properties) and disclosing that a manifest comparison is performed, which the annotations do not convey.

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?

A single well-formed sentence with the primary action front-loaded and no filler. Nothing is wasted, though a brief clause on the configuration parameter could have been added at little cost.

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?

With a read-only annotation profile and an output schema in place, the description need not explain return values. However, for a two-parameter tool with zero schema coverage, the unexplained 'configuration' parameter leaves a real gap in what an agent needs to call it correctly.

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% for both parameters. The description hints that 'project' refers to a project with either legacy AssemblyInfo.cs or SDK-style properties, which helps an agent understand the target, but it says nothing about what 'configuration' (default Debug) affects or what format 'project' takes (path, name, csproj).

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 specific verbs (read, compare) and resources (assembly version from AssemblyInfo.cs or SDK project properties, manifest), so the agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling 'compare_versions' or 'validate_manifest', which keeps it short of a 5.

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?

The comparison-against-manifest framing implies the use case (verifying version consistency), but there is no explicit statement of when to prefer this over 'compare_versions', 'read_manifest', or 'get_version'. Usage is inferable rather than declared.

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