Stormworks MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

record_vehicle_validation

Destructive

Records human observations for a vehicle validation run, replacing per-check results and rejecting changed exports, hashes, or game versions; a run passes only when all seven checks have evidence.

Instructions

Record what the player observed in game for a validation run. Only human observations belong here, never preflight output. Each observation replaces any earlier result for the same check. Refuses a changed export, a mismatched hash or a different game version. The run passes only when all seven checks pass with evidence.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`run_id`	Yes	Run id from prepare_vehicle_validation.
`tester`	Yes	Who did the test.
`game_version`	Yes	Stormworks version tested on.
`observations`	Yes	One entry per checklist check the player did: result pass, fail or skipped, with evidence and measurements.
`export_sha256`	Yes	export_sha256 from the run; must still match the file on disk.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`checks`	Yes
`design`	Yes
`run_id`	Yes
`status`	Yes
`tester`	Yes
`revision`	Yes
`created_at`	Yes
`part_count`	Yes
`game_version`	Yes
`vehicle_name`	Yes
`vehicle_path`	Yes
`export_sha256`	Yes
`evidence_level`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed5 schema fields changedv0.2.0Oct 30, 2026

addedInput schema / properties / export_sha256 / description

Added value: +"export_sha256 from the run; must still match the file on disk."

addedInput schema / properties / game_version / description
```
Added value: +"Stormworks version tested on."
```

addedInput schema / properties / observations / description

Added value: +"One entry per checklist check the player did: result pass, fail or skipped, with evidence and measurements."

addedInput schema / properties / run_id / description

Added value: +"Run id from prepare_vehicle_validation."

addedInput schema / properties / tester / description
```
Added value: +"Who did the test."
```

Addedv0.1.1Oct 7, 2026

TDQS

A4.7/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: each observation replaces an earlier result for the same check, changed exports or mismatched hashes are refused, and the run passes only when all seven checks pass with evidence. This directly clarifies the destructive and replacement semantics implied by destructiveHint=true.

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 front-loaded with the core action and immediately states the key exclusion. It is dense but every sentence carries relevant operational meaning.

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?

Given the rich schema, annotations, and output schema, the description is complete enough for an agent to call the tool correctly. It covers the critical validation gates and replacement behavior without needing to restate return values.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description still adds useful meaning by clarifying that observations are human-only, that each replaces a prior result for the same check, and that evidence is required for the run to pass.

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 states a specific verb and resource: record player observations for a validation run. It clearly distinguishes this from preflight output, which is important given sibling tools like preflight_vehicle and get_vehicle_validation. An agent can tell what this tool does without opening the schema.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

It gives clear usage guidance: use this for human in-game observations and never for preflight output. It also explains the validation completion condition, but it does not explicitly name the companion tools such as prepare_vehicle_validation or get_vehicle_validation in the description itself.

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

Deploy Server