Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Universal Game Modder

Universal Game Modder

by doritoman90000
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

jar_add_file

Add a file from disk into a JAR at a specified path, with optional overwrite, to patch Java game resources.

Instructions

Add a file from disk into the JAR.

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": {
      "session_id": "<session_id>",
      "jar_path": "<jar_path>",
      "source_path": "<source_path>"
    },
    "name": "jar_add_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
jar_pathYesDestination path within JAR
overwriteNoOverwrite if exists (default: true)
session_idYesSession ID
source_pathYesSource file on disk

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.4

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does not meet it. It doesn't state whether a session/JAR must already be open, that existing entries are overwritten by default (schema's overwrite=true), or whether the operation is reversible. For a mutation tool with zero annotation coverage this is a significant gap.

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, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than true economy.

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 mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and a required session_id, the description is too thin. It omits session lifecycle expectations, overwrite behavior, and success/failure semantics, leaving real gaps an agent needs filled.

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 100%, so all four parameters (session_id, jar_path, source_path, overwrite) are already documented in the schema. The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond it, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 ("Add") and resource ("a file from disk into the JAR"), and the phrase "from disk" implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling jar_add_file_content. It stops short of naming that alternative, so the differentiation requires the agent to infer it.

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?

There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternative jar_add_file_content (which presumably adds content rather than a disk file). The agent must guess which of the two file-adding tools to pick.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools