Alcance: servidor local o servidores que poseas o para los que tengas permiso. No es una herramienta para automatización de servidores públicos.
MCP on My SAMP permite que un agente de IA pruebe servidores de juego con flujos de trabajo repetibles:
iniciar / detener / comprobar el estado de open.mp;
iniciar / detener / comprobar el estado de RakClient headless;
esperar a que el cliente esté realmente Spawned;
enviar comandos slash permitidos;
leer el historial de salida del cliente;
verificar que el cliente ya ha recibido la respuesta del servidor;
descubrir comandos del código fuente Pawn del gamemode;
rechazar comandos fuera de la allowlist.
No proporciona flood, spam, inyección de lag, RCON arbitrario ni automatización hacia servidores públicos.
Related MCP server: Brainstorm
flowchart LR
A[AI Agent] -->|MCP stdio| B[MCP on My SAMP]
B --> C[open.mp Server]
B --> D[Headless RakClient]
D -->|UDP localhost| C
C -->|server response| D
D --> B
B -->|assertion| APrueba válida de round-trip:
command dikirim
→ server callback menerima command
→ gamemode mengirim response
→ client menerima response
→ MCP assertion berhasilSpawned por sí solo no es prueba de que el comando haya tenido éxito.
Se requiere Python 3.10 o superior.
Ejecuta desde la raíz del repositorio:
Windows
py -3 -m venv .venv
.venv\Scripts\activate
python -m pip install --upgrade pip
python -m pip install ".[dev]"Linux / macOS
python3 -m venv .venv
source .venv/bin/activate
python -m pip install --upgrade pip
python -m pip install ".[dev]"pytest -qSalida esperada:
35 passedLos binarios de open.mp y RakClient solo son necesarios para la prueba en vivo. Las pruebas unitarias de Python se pueden ejecutar sin esos binarios.
Crea un archivo de configuración local a partir de la plantilla:
Windows
copy config.example.json local-server.jsonLinux / macOS
cp config.example.json local-server.jsonRellena el archivo:
{
"executable": "vendor/openmp/Server/omp-server.exe",
"working_dir": "vendor/openmp/Server",
"args": ["--config-path", "config.json"],
"ready_text": "Legacy Network started on port",
"startup_timeout": 30
}Cambia executable y working_dir según la ubicación de open.mp en tu ordenador. local-server.json no se incluye en Git porque la ruta difiere en cada ordenador.
mcp-gta-samp --config local-server.jsonWindows
mcp-gta-samp ^
--config local-server.json ^
--client-executable vendor/rakclient-bin/rakclient.exe ^
--client-arg --server ^
--client-arg 127.0.0.1:7777 ^
--client-arg --nick ^
--client-arg MCPBot ^
--client-arg --scripts-dir ^
--client-arg vendor/rakclient-bin/scripts ^
--gamemode-source vendor/openmp/Server/gamemodes/mcp_test.pwnLinux / macOS
mcp-gta-samp \
--config local-server.json \
--client-executable vendor/rakclient-bin/rakclient \
--client-arg --server \
--client-arg 127.0.0.1:7777 \
--client-arg --nick \
--client-arg MCPBot \
--client-arg --scripts-dir \
--client-arg vendor/rakclient-bin/scripts \
--gamemode-source vendor/openmp/Server/gamemodes/mcp_test.pwnEl transporte MCP utiliza stdio.
Herramienta | Función |
| Enciende el servidor y espera a que esté listo. |
| Comprueba el estado del servidor y el PID. |
| Apaga el servidor. |
| Enciende el RakClient headless. |
| Comprueba el estado del cliente. |
| Apaga el cliente. |
| Envía el comando slash permitido después de |
| Recupera la salida del cliente ya almacenada en búfer. |
| Se asegura de que el cliente haya recibido una salida determinada. |
| Muestra los comandos del código fuente Pawn. |
| Valida el comando contra la allowlist. |
Las dos últimas herramientas están disponibles si se usa --gamemode-source.
1. server_status
2. server_start jika belum berjalan
3. client_start
4. tunggu state Spawned
5. server_list_commands
6. server_assert_command("/help")
7. client_send_chat("/help")
8. client_assert_output("MCP Test Commands:")
9. client_get_history bila perlu diagnosis
10. client_stop
11. server_stopInstrucciones importantes para el agente:
no accedas a servidores públicos;
no consideres el arranque, la conexión o Spawned como un round-trip de comando;
si falla, clasifica el límite: arranque, conexión, spawn, cola, paquete saliente, callback del servidor, respuesta del servidor, parser del cliente o aserción MCP;
detén siempre los procesos después de la prueba;
asegúrate de que el puerto UDP 7777 vuelva a estar libre.
El gamemode de prueba está disponible en:
vendor/openmp/Server/gamemodes/mcp_test.pwnComandos disponibles:
/help
/statusSi se modifica el código fuente Pawn, recompila el .amx desde la carpeta del servidor:
qawno\pawncc.exe -i.\qawno\include -o.\gamemodes\mcp_test .\gamemodes\mcp_test.pwnFlujo de trabajo en vivo:
server_start
→ client_start
→ client mencapai Spawned
→ client_send_chat("/help")
→ client_assert_output("MCP Test Commands:")
→ client_assert_output("/status - show a test response")
→ client_stop
→ server_stopEl RakClient headless demuestra el protocolo, el estado y los comandos. No genera capturas de pantalla. Las pruebas visuales requieren un cliente GTA renderizado por separado.
Ejecutar las pruebas:
pytest -qCrear el wheel:
python -m pip wheel . --no-deps -w distInstalar el wheel:
python -m pip install dist/mcp_gta_samp-0.1.0-py3-none-any.whlEstructura principal:
mcp_gta_samp/ package Python dan MCP facade
tests/ unit, contract, dan bridge tests
config.example.json template konfigurasi
vendor/ binary dan fixture live testEste MCP limita el uso a servidores locales o propios. No incluyas credenciales, grupos de proxies, configuraciones privadas, registros privados ni datos de prueba del servidor en un repositorio público.
Si ejecutas el servidor desde internet, añade tu propia autenticación y aislamiento de red. Este paquete no está diseñado como una API pública de control de juegos.
Licencia MIT. Consulta LICENSE.
Repositorio: marhenrik635-oss/mcponmysamp
Issues: informar de un problema
Start the configured local open.mp test server and wait for readiness.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover idempotency (idempotentHint=true), read-only status (readOnlyHint=false), and destructiveness (destructiveHint=false). The description adds the 'wait for readiness' behavior, which is beyond what annotations provide, giving the agent a clear expectation of the tool's runtime behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning: 'start', 'configured local open.mp test server', and 'wait for readiness' are all necessary and sufficient.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
This is a simple tool with no parameters, an output schema, and annotations covering idempotency and safety. The description fully covers the intended action and readiness behavior, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to call it correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to document. Per the baseline for 0 params, a score of 4 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to compensate for schema gaps.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a specific verb ('Start') and resource ('configured local open.mp test server') and adds 'wait for readiness' as a behavioral outcome. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings server_stop and server_status through action and intent.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The start action and readiness wait make the context obvious: this is for bringing the server up. It does not explicitly name alternatives or when-not conditions, but the sibling names and the verb provide clear contextual guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Return local open.mp test server process status.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safe read-only nature is covered. The description adds the 'local' and 'process status' scope, but does not provide additional behavioral detail such as what exactly the status output contains or whether it might throw errors if no server is running. With the output schema present, the agent can likely infer return structure, so the description adds minimal but acceptable value.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence delivers the essential meaning with no filler. It names the resource and the type of operation without unnecessary elaboration.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a no-parameter, read-only status tool with an output schema present, the description is complete enough to guide correct invocation. There are no prerequisites, options, or alternatives that need clarifying beyond what the summary already provides.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
There are zero parameters, so the description has no parameter meaning to add. The baseline for no-parameter tools is 4, and there is no relevant gap to compensate for.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description uses a specific verb ('Return') and a clear resource ('local open.mp test server process status'), making the tool's function immediately obvious. It also differentiates itself from siblings server_start and server_stop by describing a read-only status check rather than a state-changing operation.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description clearly implies the tool is for checking status rather than starting or stopping the server, which are the sibling operations. It does not explicitly state 'use this when you need to check status and not start/stop', but the context and naming make the intended use clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Stop the configured local open.mp test server.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No parameters | |||
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
No output parameters | ||
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=false, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond the verb 'Stop'. It does not clarify consequences such as terminating active sessions or clearing server state. There is no contradiction with annotations, but the description relies entirely on structured metadata.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It names the action and the target directly, and every word earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a zero-parameter destructive action with annotations covering safety and an output schema present, the description is sufficient for basic invocation. It is slightly thin on operational context such as behavior when the server is already stopped, but that is not necessary for calling the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The tool accepts zero parameters and schema description coverage is 100%, so there are no parameter semantics to document. The baseline of 4 applies because the description cannot add meaning beyond the empty schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description states a precise action ('Stop') and the exact target ('configured local open.mp test server'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools server_start and server_status, which have complementary purposes.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus server_start or server_status. The description only states the action and target, leaving the agent to infer usage from the tool name and siblings rather than from explicit instructions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Recent tool additions, removals, and schema changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0server_startserver_statusserver_stopScored across 3 tools
Each tool has a single, clear responsibility: start, stop, or check status. There is no overlap or ambiguity between them.
All tools follow the identical pattern of 'server_' followed by a simple verb (start, stop, status). This is perfectly consistent and predictable.
Three tools is exactly right for the narrow scope of managing a local server. Each tool is essential and earns its place without unnecessary bloat.
The tool set covers the core lifecycle (start, stop, status) but lacks a restart operation, which is a common need. However, agents can still accomplish restart via stop+start, so this is a minor gap.
Create guides as MCP servers to instruct coding agents to use your software (library, API, etc).
Official MCP server for Agentwork — delegate tasks to AI agents with human-in-the-loop
Hosted MCP server connecting claude.ai, ChatGPT and other AI apps to your own computer
Nifty's MCP server — exposes tasks, projects, messages, and files as tools for AI agents.
