zandronum-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Map info

map_info

Read a WAD map file to retrieve its format (Doom, Hexen, or UDMF) and entity counts directly from disk, without needing the game running.

Instructions

Read a map from a WAD and return its format (doom/hexen/udmf) and entity counts. Reads the file directly — the game need not be running.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "map": "<map>"
    },
    "name": "map_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`map`	Yes
`file`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Without annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses a read operation and offline capability, but does not mention error handling, permissions, or detailed behavior (e.g., what happens if the map doesn't exist).

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, front-loaded with purpose, no wasted words. Every sentence adds value.

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

Completeness2/5

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

The description lacks parameter details and return structure explanation. With no output schema, it should specify what 'entity counts' includes and the format of the response. It is adequate for a simple tool but incomplete.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, and the description does not clarify the meaning of the 'map' and 'file' parameters. It only indirectly references reading a map, adding minimal value beyond the schema structure.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description clearly states it reads a map from a WAD and returns format and entity counts, with specific format types (doom/hexen/udmf). It distinguishes from siblings like load_map by noting the game need not be running.

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 implies offline use ('the game need not be running'), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use this tool or mention alternatives among siblings.

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