zandronum-mcp

by rc4l

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

Run ACS script

run_script

Execute ACS scripts in Zandronum by number or name, passing optional integer arguments.

Instructions

Run (puke) an ACS script by number or name, with optional integer arguments.

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": {
      "script": "<script>"
    },
    "name": "run_script"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`args`	No
`always`	No
`script`	Yes
`instance`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jun 26, 2026

TDQS

C2.5/5.0

Behavior1/5

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

With no annotations, the description must bear full transparency burden. It only says 'Run (puke)' without explaining side effects, destructiveness, authentication, or what happens on success/failure. The parenthetical 'puke' is unclear jargon.

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, very concise. However, the inclusion of 'puke' adds unnecessary jargon that may confuse. It is front-loaded but could be more user-friendly.

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

Completeness1/5

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

Given 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is severely incomplete. It does not cover return value, error conditions, or effect on the system. The agent lacks critical information to use the tool correctly.

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%, yet the description only mentions 'optional integer arguments' (args). It does not explain the meaning of 'script' (number or name), 'always' (boolean), or 'instance' (integer with default). No additional semantics beyond schema.

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 the tool runs an ACS script, specifying identification by number or name and optional integer arguments. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like list_scripts or get_acs_var.

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 guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as run_command or list_scripts. There is no mention of prerequisites or typical use cases.

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