emptysock-mcp

save_read

Read a save slot from disk and return its JSON data, allowing AI agents to access or modify game state.

Instructions

Read a save slot from disk and return its JSON data.

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": {
      "slot": "<slot>"
    },
    "name": "save_read"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`slot`	Yes	Alphanumeric slot name, e.g. "slot1" or "autosave"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Sep 10, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that it reads from disk and returns JSON data, which implies a non-mutating operation. However, it does not mention error behavior for missing slots, whether the JSON is parsed or raw, or any side effects beyond reading.

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?

The description is a single concise sentence, front-loads the verb and object, and includes the key output type (JSON data). No filler or 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 simple read tool with one documented parameterchers, the description covers the core behavior and output. It lacks notes on failure modes, whether the slot must already exist, or how the returned JSON is structured, which leaves some ambiguity for an agent calling this tool.

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?

The input schema already fully documents the slot parameter with an example, and the description references 'a save slot' without adding meaningful details beyond the schema. No additional parameter semantics are contributed.

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?

The description uses a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('a save slot from disk') and states the return value ('its JSON data'). This clearly distinguishes it from the sibling tools save_write, save_delete, and save_list.

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 guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives, nor any conditions or prerequisites. The description states what it does but does not explicitly frame it as the read counterpart to save_write/save_delete or mention when it is appropriate or inappropriate.

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