Skip to main content
Glama

prepare_vehicle_validation

Destructive

Export a draft as an in-game test vehicle and start a seven-check validation tied to its exact file hash and revision, so player test results can be recorded and reviewed.

Instructions

Export a draft as a separate test vehicle in the game folder and open a validation run: a seven-check in-game checklist tied to the file's exact SHA-256 and the draft revision. Use it when a draft is ready for the player to test; record their results with record_vehicle_validation and review them with get_vehicle_validation. Refuses vehicles this tool did not write and replaces its own only with overwrite=true. Checks start pending; connected geometry never counts as game evidence.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName for the file in the vehicles folder and the game's Load menu: letters, digits, spaces, _ - ( ), at most 64 characters.
designYesStored draft name (from import_vehicle, create_land_vehicle, store_design or save_hull; see list_designs).
overwriteNoReplace an earlier vehicle of this name written by this tool. Files this tool did not write are never replaced.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
checksYes
designYes
run_idYes
statusYes
testerYes
revisionYes
created_atYes
part_countYes
game_versionYes
vehicle_nameYes
vehicle_pathYes
export_sha256Yes
evidence_levelYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.2.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / design / description
      Added value: +"Stored draft name (from import_vehicle, create_land_vehicle, store_design or save_hull; see list_designs)."
    • addedInput schema / properties / name / description
      Added value: +"Name for the file in the vehicles folder and the game's Load menu: letters, digits, spaces, _ - ( ), at most 64 characters."
    • addedInput schema / properties / overwrite / description
      Added value: +"Replace an earlier vehicle of this name written by this tool. Files this tool did not write are never replaced."
  2. Addedv0.1.1

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the destructiveHint/not-idempotent annotations by disclosing that it refuses vehicles it did not write, only replaces its own with overwrite=true, that checks start pending, and that connected geometry never counts as game evidence. These are non-obvious side effects an agent could not infer from the schema.

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?

The core action and the SHA-256/revision scoping are front-loaded, followed by the usage routing and caveats. Sentences are dense but every one carries information; only the trailing 'checks start pending' sentence feels appended rather than structured.

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

Completeness5/5

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

For a destructive write tool with annotations and an output schema present, the description covers what gets written, what is refused, overwrite semantics, the validation artifact produced, and the follow-up tools. Nothing needed to invoke it correctly is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds contextual meaning to overwrite by tying it to the ownership rule ('replaces its own only with overwrite=true'), which explains the practical consequence of the flag rather than restating its definition.

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 outcome: exports a draft as a separate test vehicle in the game folder and opens a seven-check in-game validation run. The scope (tied to the file's exact SHA-256 and draft revision) makes it unambiguously distinct from sibling tools like save_vehicle or record_vehicle_validation.

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 names the condition for use ('when a draft is ready for the player to test') and routes to both follow-up siblings by name, record_vehicle_validation and get_vehicle_validation. The refusal/overwrite rule further clarifies when the tool will and will not act.

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