vnyan-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

VNyan parameters

vnyan_param

Read or write VNyan numeric/text parameters and expand bracketed parameter references in strings for live node graph control.

Instructions

Get or set VNyan's numeric/text parameters and expand [bracketed] parameter references in a string. These are the same parameters SetParamNode/FilterParamNode read and write in node graphs. 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>"
    },
    "name": "vnyan_param"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Parameter name (required for get/set actions)
`text`	No	Text containing [bracketed] parameter refs, for fillString
`value`	No	Value to set
`which`	No	Which built-in, for 'internal'
`action`	Yes	Which parameter operation to perform

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

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 capability and live source, but does not detail side effects, rate limits, or error conditions. More context on data freshness or mutation scope would improve transparency.

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 efficiently convey purpose, scope, and source without fluff. Front-loaded with the core action, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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?

For a tool with 5 params, no output schema, and no annotations, the description covers the basic function and source but omits return value format, error handling, and example usage. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context about parameter origin (node graphs) but does not enhance parameter meaning beyond the schema. Baseline 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 the tool's function: get/set numeric/text parameters and expand bracketed references. It also specifies the source (plugin, live, read+write) and connects to node graph concepts, distinguishing it from siblings like vnyan_avatar or vnyan_trigger.

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 usage by referencing node graph parameters, but lacks explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. No mention of prerequisites or limitations.

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