スコープ: ローカルサーバー、または自分が所有・許可したサーバーのみを対象とします。公開サーバーを自動化するためのツールではありません。
MCP on My SAMP を使用すると、AI エージェントが再現可能なワークフローでゲームサーバーをテストできます:
open.mp の起動 / 停止 / ステータス確認;
ヘッドレス RakClient の起動 / 停止 / ステータス確認;
クライアントが実際に Spawned になるのを待機;
許可されたスラッシュコマンドの送信;
クライアントの出力履歴の読み取り;
サーバーのレスポンスがクライアントに届いたことを検証;
Pawn のゲームモードソースからコマンドを発見;
許可リスト外のコマンドを拒否。
フラッド、スパム、ラグ注入、任意の RCON、公開サーバー向けの自動化は提供しません。
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| A有効なラウンドトリップの証明:
command dikirim
→ server callback menerima command
→ gamemode mengirim response
→ client menerima response
→ MCP assertion berhasilSpawned だけではコマンド成功の証明にはなりません。
Python 3.10 以降 が必要です。
リポジトリのルートから実行してください:
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 -q期待される出力:
35 passedopen.mp と RakClient のバイナリはライブテストでのみ必要です。Python のユニットテストは、これらのバイナリがなくても実行できます。
テンプレートからローカル設定ファイルを作成します:
Windows
copy config.example.json local-server.jsonLinux / macOS
cp config.example.json local-server.jsonファイルの内容:
{
"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
}executable と working_dir は、お使いのコンピューター上の open.mp の場所に合わせて変更してください。local-server.json は各コンピューターでパスが異なるため、Git には含まれません。
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.pwnMCP のトランスポートは stdio を使用します。
ツール | 機能（はたらき） |
| サーバーを起動し、準備完了（レディネス）を待機します。 |
| サーバーのステータスと PID を確認します。 |
| サーバーを停止します。 |
| ヘッドレス RakClient を起動します。 |
| クライアントのステータスを確認します。 |
| クライアントを停止します。 |
|
|
| バッファリングされたクライアントの出力を取得します。 |
| 特定の出力がクライアントに届いたことを確認します。 |
| Pawn ソースからコマンドを表示します。 |
| コマンドを許可リストに対して検証します。 |
最後の 2 つのツールは、--gamemode-source を使用した場合に利用できます。
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_stopエージェントへの重要な指示:
公開サーバーにアクセスしないこと;
ブート、参加、Spawned をコマンドのラウンドトリップとして見なさないこと;
失敗した場合は、境界を分類すること: ブート、接続、スポーン、キュー、アウトバウンドパケット、サーバーコールバック、サーバーレスポンス、クライアントパーサー、MCP アサーション;
テストが終了したら必ずプロセスを停止すること;
UDP ポート 7777 が再び空き状態になっていることを確認すること。
テスト用ゲームモードは次の場所にあります:
vendor/openmp/Server/gamemodes/mcp_test.pwn利用可能なコマンド:
/help
/statusPawn ソースを変更した場合は、サーバーフォルダーから .amx を再コンパイルしてください:
qawno\pawncc.exe -i.\qawno\include -o.\gamemodes\mcp_test .\gamemodes\mcp_test.pwnライブワークフロー:
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_stopヘッドレス RakClient はプロトコル、状態、コマンドを証明します。スクリーンショットは生成しません。視覚的な確認は、レンダリングされた GTA クライアントを別途使用する必要があります。
テストを実行:
pytest -qwheel を作成:
python -m pip wheel . --no-deps -w distwheel をインストール:
python -m pip install dist/mcp_gta_samp-0.1.0-py3-none-any.whlコア構成物:
mcp_gta_samp/ package Python dan MCP facade
tests/ unit, contract, dan bridge tests
config.example.json template konfigurasi
vendor/ binary dan fixture live testこの MCP の利用範囲はローカル / 所有サーバーに限定されます。認証情報、プロキシプール、プライベート設定、プライベートログ、テストサーバーのデータを公開リポジトリに含めないでください。
インターネットからサーバーを実行する場合は、認証とネットワークの分離を自分で追加してください。このパッケージは公開のゲーム制御 API として設計されていません。
MIT License。 LICENSEを参照してください。
リポジトリ: marhenrik635-oss/mcponmysamp
問題報告: 問題を報告
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.
