Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
dosbox-mcp

dosbox-mcp

by dosbox-automation
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

script_run

Load and run a sandboxed Lua script on the emulation thread to automate DOS tasks that lack a dedicated MCP tool.

Instructions

Load and start a Lua script. The script runs sandboxed on the emulation thread. Any DOS automation capability without a dedicated tool is reachable through a Lua script.

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": {
      "script": "<script>"
    },
    "name": "script_run"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scriptYesLua source code to execute.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.1

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds that execution is sandboxed and runs on the emulation thread — useful context beyond the annotation. It does not disclose lifecycle behavior (whether the script keeps running until script_stop, blocking or async execution, or error handling), which matters for an arbitrary-code-execution tool.

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?

Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action, each contributing distinct information (what it does, how it runs, when to use it). No redundancy.

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 tool that executes arbitrary code in a sandboxed emulator, the description omits lifecycle and error semantics despite sibling tools (script_status, script_stop) implying asynchronous execution. With no output schema and only an annotation flag, more behavioral detail would be warranted.

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 coverage is 100% with a single 'script' parameter documented as 'Lua source code to execute.' The description adds no syntax, size, or format constraints beyond that, so the 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource — 'Load and start a Lua script' — which is unambiguous and clearly distinct from script_status and script_stop. It does not explicitly name those siblings as the way to check or halt the script, so it falls short of the top score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The third sentence gives a clear use condition: reach for a Lua script when a DOS automation capability has no dedicated tool. There is no explicit statement of when NOT to use it (e.g., prefer the dedicated tool when one exists), but the routing intent is clear.

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