war-selection-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

search_mod_code

Read-onlyIdempotent

Search cached War Selection mod code and drafts with case-insensitive regex to find matches by file and line, with surrounding context lines.

Instructions

Regex search (case-insensitive) across cached mod code and drafts; returns file:line with context lines.

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": {
      "regex": "<regex>"
    },
    "name": "search_mod_code"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`limit`	No
`regex`	Yes
`context`	No
`latest_only`	No
`include_drafts`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.0Oct 18, 2026

TDQS

B3.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive and closed-world, so safety is covered. The description adds real behavioral context beyond that: matching is case-insensitive, scope covers both cached code and drafts, and output is file:line with surrounding context lines. It omits what 'cached' implies about staleness, which would have been useful.

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?

One tight sentence with the operation and payload front-loaded and zero filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.

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?

Adequate but incomplete for a 5-parameter, zero-coverage search tool with no output schema. It covers the search semantics and return shape, but leaves the limit/latest_only semantics and the freshness of the 'cached' corpus unexplained.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden and it only partially does. It hints at the drafts scope (include_drafts) and context lines (context) but says nothing about limit or the meaning of latest_only, leaving two of five parameters undocumented anywhere.

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 concrete verb+resource: regex search over 'cached mod code and drafts', and adds the result shape (file:line with context). This distinguishes it from search_api and search_guide by scope, though it never names those siblings explicitly, so the differentiation must be inferred from the resource noun.

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, when-not-to-use, or alternative guidance is given. An agent must infer from the resource scope that this searches mod source rather than game/API docs; nothing states when to reach for this versus search_api or search_guide.

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