Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Universal Game Modder

Universal Game Modder

by doritoman90000
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

jar_read_file

Read a text file from inside a JAR archive to inspect Java game configs, resource files, or embedded data during modding. Supply a session ID and the file path within the JAR.

Instructions

Read a text file from 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>",
      "file_path": "<file_path>"
    },
    "name": "jar_read_file"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
file_pathYesFile path within JAR
session_idYesSession ID

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?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only operation and a text-only scope, but never states whether a session must be open, what happens on binary input, error behavior, or size limits for a file-read operation.

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 short sentence with the action and target front-loaded and zero waste. It is efficient, though its brevity borders on under-specification rather than pure conciseness.

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?

For a simple two-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description covers the core action but omits session requirement, return content, and text-vs-binary handling. It is minimally adequate given the tool's simplicity.

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 both session_id and file_path are already documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the file_path format or session context beyond the schema's own text, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 ('Read') and resource ('a text file from the JAR'), and the 'text file' qualifier implicitly separates it from jar_read_class and jar_hex_view. However it never names an alternative, so the differentiation from siblings is inferred rather than explicit.

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?

No when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives. The agent can only infer usage from the name and the 'text file' hint; there is no routing information to distinguish this from jar_read_class, jar_hex_view, or jar_search.

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