Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DX12 Engine MCP Server

DX12 Engine MCP Server

by ryuto-alt
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

ログ取得

dx12_get_log
Read-only

Retrieves the last N lines from the engine log to debug errors and print statements.

Instructions

エンジンログの末尾 N 行を配列で返す。エラーや print() の確認に使う。

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": "dx12_get_log"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
linesNo取得行数(既定 50)。

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultNoエンジンからの生の結果。実際の形は各ツールの説明 / dx12_describe_components を参照。text にも同内容を JSON 文字列で格納。

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

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, so the tool is known to be non-destructive. The description adds that it returns an array and is for debugging, which aligns with the annotation and provides additional behavioral context.

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?

The description is extremely concise, consisting of two sentences that front-load the core functionality. No unnecessary words or redundant information.

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 the tool's simplicity (one optional parameter, read-only, output schema exists), the description is complete. It explains the return format, default behavior, and common use case.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The schema coverage is 100%, with the parameter 'lines' described both in schema and description. The description does not add any extra meaning beyond the schema, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 returns the last N lines of the engine log as an array, and is used for checking errors and print() output. This is specific and distinguishes from sibling tools, none of which relate to log retrieval.

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 mentions using the tool to check errors and print(), providing clear context. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives, which is acceptable given the simple nature and lack of similar sibling tools.

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