No user-submitted related servers found.
Scored across 44 tools
Many tools are clearly distinct by context (layer management vs. runtime Script Extender vs. toolkit vs. tests), but several pairs overlap: bg3_ingame_check/bg3_se_live_entry both compare indexed vs. loaded data, bg3_search/bg3_search_effects/bg3_references/bg3_static all search different facets, and bg3_get_entry/bg3_diff both resolve entries. Descriptions help, but with 44 tools an agent faces real misselection risk.
All tools use the bg3_ prefix and snake_case, making them predictable and visually cohesive. However, the verb_noun pattern is not strict: many tools are noun-only (bg3_layers, bg3_environment, bg3_static, bg3_progression) while others use verbs (bg3_get_entry, bg3_search_effects), a minor deviation.
At 44 tools, the surface is far above the typical well-scoped range of 3-15 and even beyond the 25+ threshold that the rubric treats as too many. Although BG3 modding is a complex domain, the sheer count—driven by many specialized test, runtime, and toolkit operations—creates a heavy cognitive load and higher likelihood of tool selection errors.
The surface covers a broad lifecycle: layer add/remove/list/refresh, stats and effect search/resolution, runtime Script Extender interaction, hot-loading, automated and scripted testing, linting, toolkit export/check, deployment, and environment discovery. Gaps are minor—for example, there is no direct stats-entry editing or file mutation tool, but the inspection/test/deploy focus appears intentional and workable.