범위: 로컬 서버 또는 사용자가 소유/허가한 서버. 공개 서버 자동화용 도구가 아닙니다.
MCP on My SAMP는 AI 에이전트가 반복 가능한 워크플로우로 게임 서버를 테스트할 수 있게 합니다:
open.mp 시작 / 중지 / 상태 확인;
헤드리스 RakClient 시작 / 중지 / 상태 확인;
클라이언트가 실제로 Spawned될 때까지 대기;
허용된 슬래시 명령 전송;
클라이언트 출력 기록 읽기;
서버 응답이 클라이언트에 수신되었는지 검증;
Pawn gamemode 소스에서 명령 찾기;
allowlist 외부의 명령 거부.
플러드, 스팸, 지연 주입, 임의 RCON 또는 공개 서버 자동화는 제공하지 않습니다.
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| A유효한 왕복(round-trip) 증거:
command dikirim
→ server callback menerima command
→ gamemode mengirim response
→ client menerima response
→ MCP assertion berhasilSpawned만으로는 명령 성공의 증거가 아닙니다.
Python 3.10 이상이 필요합니다.
저장소 루트에서 실행:
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 -q예상 출력:
35 passedopen.mp 및 RakClient 바이너리는 라이브 테스트에만 필요합니다. Python 단위 테스트는 해당 바이너리 없이도 실행할 수 있습니다.
템플릿에서 로컬 구성 파일 생성:
Windows
copy config.example.json local-server.jsonLinux / macOS
cp config.example.json local-server.json파일 내용:
{
"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 및 working_dir을 컴퓨터의 open.mp 위치에 맞게 변경하세요. local-server.json은 컴퓨터마다 경로가 다르므로 Git에 포함되지 않습니다.
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 전송은 stdio를 사용합니다.
도구 | 기능 |
| 서버를 시작하고 준비 상태를 기다립니다. |
| 서버 상태 및 PID를 확인합니다. |
| 서버를 종료합니다. |
| 헤드리스 RakClient를 시작합니다. |
| 클라이언트 상태를 확인합니다. |
| 클라이언트를 종료합니다. |
|
|
| 버퍼링된 클라이언트 출력을 가져옵니다. |
| 특정 출력이 클라이언트에 수신되었는지 확인합니다. |
| Pawn 소스의 명령을 표시합니다. |
| allowlist에 대해 명령을 검증합니다. |
마지막 두 도구는 --gamemode-source가 사용될 때 사용할 수 있습니다.
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_stop에이전트를 위한 중요 지침:
공개 서버에 접근하지 마세요;
부팅, 조인 또는 Spawned를 명령 왕복으로 간주하지 마세요;
실패 시 경계를 분류하세요: 부팅, 연결, 스폰, 대기열, 아웃바운드 패킷, 서버 콜백, 서버 응답, 클라이언트 파서 또는 MCP 어서션;
테스트 후 항상 프로세스를 중지하세요;
UDP 포트 7777이 다시 비어 있는지 확인하세요.
테스트 gamemode는 다음 위치에 있습니다:
vendor/openmp/Server/gamemodes/mcp_test.pwn사용 가능한 명령:
/help
/statusPawn 소스를 변경한 경우 서버 폴더에서 .amx를 다시 컴파일하세요:
qawno\pawncc.exe -i.\qawno\include -o.\gamemodes\mcp_test .\gamemodes\mcp_test.pwn라이브 워크플로우:
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_stop헤드리스 RakClient는 프로토콜, 상태 및 명령을 증명합니다. 스크린샷을 생성하지 않습니다. 시각적 테스트에는 별도의 렌더링된 GTA 클라이언트가 필요합니다.
테스트 실행:
pytest -qwheel 생성:
python -m pip wheel . --no-deps -w distwheel 설치:
python -m pip install dist/mcp_gta_samp-0.1.0-py3-none-any.whl핵심 구조:
mcp_gta_samp/ package Python dan MCP facade
tests/ unit, contract, dan bridge tests
config.example.json template konfigurasi
vendor/ binary dan fixture live test이 MCP는 로컬/소유 서버로 사용을 제한합니다. 자격 증명, 프록시 풀, 개인 구성, 개인 로그 또는 테스트 서버 데이터를 공개 저장소에 포함하지 마세요.
인터넷에서 서버를 실행하는 경우 인증 및 네트워크 격리를 직접 추가하세요. 이 패키지는 공개 게임 제어 API로 설계되지 않았습니다.
MIT 라이선스. LICENSE 참조.
이슈: 문제 보고
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.
