vnyan-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

VNyan props

vnyan_prop

List configured props in VNyan, or set or toggle a specific prop's visibility by name to control what appears on stream.

Instructions

List configured props (disk, always readable), or set/toggle an existing prop's visibility by name (plugin, live - the same as the Toggle Prop node / a prop's Twitch redeem).

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_prop"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	No	Prop name (required for set/toggle)
`action`	Yes	Which prop operation to perform
`active`	No	For 'set': true to show, false to hide (default true)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry behavioral transparency. It mentions 'always readable' for list and 'plugin, live' for set/toggle, hinting at persistence, but does not clarify side effects, permissions, or error conditions. Adequate but not comprehensive.

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 concisely cover the tool's purpose and modes. Every sentence adds value, and the description is front-loaded with the main action. No unnecessary words.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Given the simple parameter set and absence of output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's functionality. It explains the two operation modes and parameter requirements. Could mention return format for list, but still complete for most use cases.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds context that set/toggle require an existing prop and that active defaults to true, complementing the schema. However, it does not significantly enhance beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 lists configured props or sets/toggles visibility by name, with specific distinctions between modes. It references the Toggle Prop node and Twitch redeem, differentiating from sibling tools which cover other VNyan features.

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 implicitly indicates when to use each action (list vs. set/toggle) but lacks explicit guidance on when not to use alternatives or prerequisites. Context from sibling tools helps, but more direct usage advice would improve the score.

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