vnyan-mcp

by seth-rah

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

TypeScript

Local

VNyan dictionaries

vnyan_dict

Retrieve, update, or remove entries in VNyan's named dictionaries to control node graph and REST API data.

Instructions

Get/set/clear entries in VNyan's named dictionaries - the same store JsonDictionaryNode and GetDictionaryValueNode use in node graphs, and where the REST API's payload lands. Source: plugin (live, read+write).

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": {
      "action": "<action>",
      "dict": "<dict>"
    },
    "name": "vnyan_dict"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`key`	No	Key (required for get/set)
`dict`	Yes	Dictionary name
`value`	No	Value (required for set)
`action`	Yes	Which dictionary operation to perform

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It states 'read+write' and live plugin source, but lacks details on atomicity, error handling, or return values. This partial disclosure leaves significant gaps.

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 with no wasted words. The key actions and context are front-loaded. Every sentence contributes 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?

No output schema is provided, and the description omits what the tool returns (especially for 'get') and error conditions. This is a significant gap for a CRUD tool, making it incomplete for an agent to use confidently.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema; 'get/set/clear' is already in the action enum description.

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 identifies the verb (get/set/clear), resource (VNyan named dictionaries), and distinguishes from sibling tools by mentioning the specific data store used in node graphs and REST API.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

The description implies when to use (for dictionary operations) but provides no explicit guidance on when not to use or alternatives among sibling tools. The mention of 'plugin (live, read+write)' gives context but no exclusions.

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