Skip to main content
Glama
edgegap

Edgegap MCP Server

Official
by edgegap
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Validate a game server Dockerfile and port config

edgegap_validate_server_config
Read-onlyIdempotent

Check a game server Dockerfile and the ports/resources you intend to register against what Edgegap requires, BEFORE building and pushing.

Instructions

Check a game server Dockerfile and the ports/resources you intend to register against what Edgegap requires, BEFORE building and pushing. Catches the failures that otherwise only show up after a build, push, version and deploy: ARM or Windows images (Edgegap runs linux/amd64), Unreal running as root, missing Unity -batchmode -nographics, a server bound to localhost, EXPOSE ports that do not match the version ports, a protocol that does not match the netcode transport, the "latest" tag, and bad CPU/memory ratios. Pass the Dockerfile text (read it from disk first). If there is no Dockerfile yet, call edgegap_generate_dockerfile instead. Makes no API calls.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
portsNoPorts you plan to pass to edgegap_create_app_version.
engineNoGame engine. Detected from the Dockerfile when omitted.
netcodeNoNetworking transport, to check the port protocol. Known: mirror-kcp, kcp, mirror-telepathy, telepathy, mirror-simpleweb, simpleweb, websocket, fishnet-tugboat, tugboat, netcode-for-gameobjects, ngo, unity-transport, utp, photon-fusion, litenetlib, enet, unreal-netdriver, godot-enet, godot-websocket.
cpu_unitsNo
memory_mbNo
docker_tagNo
dockerfileNoFull text of the Dockerfile.
docker_imageNo
docker_repositoryNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv0.5.2
    • addedInput schema / properties / ports / items / properties / tls_upgrade
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "TLS Upgrade (wss/https) on a WS or HTTP port, for browser clients.",
+  "type": "boolean"
+}
  2. Addedv0.2.0

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds genuinely new behavior: it is a purely local check ('Makes no API calls'), and it discloses the concrete validation rules applied (linux/amd64 only, root detection, Unity batchmode flags, localhost binding, EXPOSE/version-port mismatch, protocol/netcode mismatch, 'latest' tag, CPU/memory ratios). It stops short of saying how findings are reported.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose sentence, then a dense but non-redundant list of failure categories, closing with the sibling alternative and the no-API-calls note. The failure list is long but every item is a distinct, actionable check rather than filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Covers the two things an agent most needs: what gets checked and that this is a safe local operation with an alternative when the Dockerfile is absent. The one real gap is the return contract — with no output schema and no statement of what a failed validation yields (findings list vs boolean), the agent cannot anticipate the response shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

With only 44% schema coverage, the description compensates by binding several bare params to meaning: dockerfile ('Pass the Dockerfile text, read it from disk first'), netcode (protocol-vs-transport matching), docker_tag ('latest' rejection), cpu_units/memory_mb (ratios), and ports (must agree with version ports). It does not meaningfully clarify docker_image vs docker_repository, the engine auto-detection, or the port name/tls_upgrade fields.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (validate a game server Dockerfile plus ports/resources) and pins the timing ('BEFORE building and pushing'), which cleanly separates it from edgegap_create_app_version, edgegap_deploy and edgegap_build_matchmaker_config. The enumerated failure classes make the scope unmistakable.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says when to call it (pre-build/push, read the Dockerfile from disk first) and names the alternative for the opposite condition: 'If there is no Dockerfile yet, call edgegap_generate_dockerfile instead.' That is a textbook when/when-not/alternative split.

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