Check a compiled plugin DLL against a game's Managed directory to find missing references and conflicts. Use it to catch mod load failures before runtime.
Validate compiled plugin DLL for missing references and conflicts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| plugin_path | Yes | Path to compiled plugin DLL | |
| managed_directory | Yes | Path to game Managed directory |
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, and it only names the validation scope. It does not say what a result looks like (pass/fail, issue list), whether it throws or returns diagnostics, whether it needs the game to be loaded, or what happens when the Managed directory is wrong — all material for a validation 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 tight sentence with the action and its checks front-loaded and no filler. It is well-sized, though the terseness is partly the same under-specification penalized elsewhere.
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?
With no annotations and no output schema, the description must explain the result contract for a validation operation, and it does not. An agent cannot tell what it gets back, how failures are surfaced, or whether it should run before build_and_deploy — gaps that matter for a two-required-parameter validation tool.
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% and both parameters are documented there ('Path to compiled plugin DLL', 'Path to game Managed directory'). The description only reinforces plugin_path indirectly via 'compiled plugin DLL' and adds nothing about managed_directory, so the schema does the heavy lifting — 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 a specific verb (validate) and a specific resource (compiled plugin DLL), plus the exact failure classes it looks for (missing references and conflicts). That is enough to separate it from neighbors like analyze_dll_structure or diff_assemblies, though it does not explicitly name any sibling it is not.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites (e.g., that the plugin must already be compiled via compile_plugin or generated via generate_plugin), and no routing to an alternative when the check passes or fails. Usage is only implied by the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.