tmodloader-mcp

by musharna

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Python

Local

What the running mod serves

commands

Read-only

Retrieve the published list of mod-defined console entries, optionally from the dedicated server instead of the client.

Instructions

What this side's mod says it serves, read from the mod itself.

The list is published by the responder when it loads, not assembled here. This harness used to carry its own copy of one mod's twelve commands and its own belief about which read an argument — facts that belonged to running C# and drifted the moment either side changed alone.

responder IS THE USEFUL FIELD when something is wrong. False means no list was published: the mod is not loaded, or is a build with the dev bridge compiled out. That is a different answer from a game still starting, and it used to arrive as a readiness timeout, which names the wrong thing entirely — it reads as slow rather than as never going to answer.

A list that exists but cannot be read is an ERROR rather than responder: false, because it means a responder IS running and this side cannot understand it — a version mismatch, which needs a human rather than a wait.

Args: server: Ask the dedicated server rather than the client. Each side publishes its own list, and they are not always the same.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`server`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`note`	Yes
`commands`	Yes
`responder`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.6.3Sep 17, 2026

TDQS

A4.5/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the description goes beyond them by explaining the responder field, the false/error distinction, and that the list is published at load time. It also clarifies that server and client lists differ, adding significant behavioral context not in annotations.

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 description is longer than typical but every sentence contributes value, including historical context that clarifies the tool's design. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured with an Args section. Slightly verbose but appropriately sized for the complexity.

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 an output schema exists, the description covers the essential behavioral aspects: what the tool returns, how to interpret edge cases, and the optional parameter. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to call the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description is the sole source for parameter meaning. It explicitly explains the 'server' parameter: ask the dedicated server rather than the client, and notes the lists are not always the same. This fully compensates for the schema's lack of description.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool reads what the running mod serves, and explains it is read from the mod itself. It is specific about the resource and action, but does not explicitly differentiate from sibling tools, so it falls short of a 5.

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?

The description provides clear context for when the responder field is useful and distinguishes between 'false' and error states, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or provide exclusions. It gives strong interpretive guidance but lacks direct tool-selection direction.

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

Deploy Server