Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
zandronum-mcp

zandronum-mcp

by rc4l
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

List ACS functions

list_functions

List named ACS functions from loaded modules to identify available scripting functions for Zandronum development.

Instructions

Run dumpfunctions and return named ACS functions across loaded modules.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "list_functions"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
instanceNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It states the tool runs a command but does not disclose whether it is read-only, requires permissions, or if there are side effects. For a listing tool, likely safe, but not explicit.

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 a single sentence that conveys the core action concisely. It avoids redundancy and is front-loaded with 'Run `dumpfunctions`'. However, it could be slightly more structured by separating the parameter explanation.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the simple tool (one optional parameter, no output schema), the description covers the basic purpose but lacks parameter semantics and behavioral details. It is minimally adequate but could be more complete by explaining 'instance' and return format.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% for the single parameter 'instance', and the tool description does not mention it at all. The parameter's purpose (e.g., specifying a module instance) is unclear. The description adds no value beyond the schema structure.

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 runs `dumpfunctions` and returns named ACS functions across loaded modules. It uses specific verbs and resource references, and it distinguishes from sibling tools like list_scripts (scripts) and list_acs_vars (variables). However, it could be more precise about the scope.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description implies it is for listing ACS functions, but does not mention when not to use it or suggest other tools for related tasks. With many sibling tools, this omission hurts usability.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools