Compile a mod project and deploy the built output to the game's mods directory, auto-detecting build commands and deploy paths when omitted.
Compile a mod project and deploy the output to the game mods directory.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| deploy_path | No | Path to deploy the built mod (auto-detected if omitted) | |
| project_path | Yes | Path to the mod project directory | |
| build_command | No | Custom build command (auto-detected if omitted) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether deployment overwrites existing files in the mods directory, what permissions are needed, whether the build is destructive, or what a failure looks like — significant gaps for a mutating build/deploy tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single compact sentence that front-loads the two core actions. Efficient with no filler, though it is arguably under-specified rather than optimally concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a mutating build-and-deploy tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description omits when to use it, what the deployment does to existing files, and what the result looks like. It leaves too much to inference for the tool's complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so all three parameters (project_path, deploy_path, build_command) are already documented in the schema, including their auto-detection behavior. The description adds nothing beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States specific verbs (compile, deploy) and the resource (a mod project plus the game mods directory), so the agent knows roughly what it does. However, it does not differentiate from siblings like compile_plugin or scaffold_mod, so it falls 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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as compile_plugin or mod_this_game, and no prerequisites or ordering constraints are stated. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.