Beat Saber Modding Tools MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

read_manifest

Read-only

Reads and validates a BSIPA manifest.json to verify your Beat Saber mod project's metadata and configuration before building or packaging.

Instructions

Read and validate a BSIPA manifest.json (project manifest by default).

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": "read_manifest"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	No
`project`	No

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 10, 2026

TDQS

B3/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds the defaulting behavior ('project manifest by default') but says nothing about what validation failures look like, whether errors are raised or reported, or what happens if the file is missing.

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 short sentence with the resource front-loaded and no filler. Nothing needs to be trimmed; the issue is under-specification rather than verbosity.

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?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, for a two-parameter tool with zero schema coverage and a near-duplicate sibling (validate_manifest), the definition leaves the agent guessing about parameter meaning and tool selection.

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%, so both parameters (path, project) are undocumented in the schema and the description must compensate. The parenthetical only loosely implies that `project` sets the default location; the meaning of `path`, how it interacts with `project`, and precedence between the two remain 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?

States a specific verb pair (read and validate) and resource (a BSIPA manifest.json), so an agent knows the domain object precisely. However, it does not distinguish itself from the sibling validate_manifest or generate_manifest, which appear to overlap on the manifest object.

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 only usage signal is '(project manifest by default)', which hints at default resolution behavior rather than when to choose this tool. There is no explicit guidance on when to use it instead of validate_manifest, nor any stated preconditions such as whether a project must already exist.

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