vnyan-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Read VNyan settings.json

vnyan_settings_get

Retrieve VNyan settings for any area (tracking, output, graphics, audio, connections, misc) directly from disk, even when VNyan isn't running, with passwords redacted.

Instructions

Reads settings.json (tracking/output/graphics/audio/connections/misc). Source: disk, always readable regardless of whether VNyan is running. Secrets (OBS/Chaturbate/VNyanNet passwords) are redacted. Props/colliders/pendulums/stretch bones/gestures/expressions have their own dedicated tools and are not included here.

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": {
      "area": "<area>"
    },
    "name": "vnyan_settings_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`area`	Yes	Which settings area to read

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Jul 29, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description fully bears the burden. It discloses: reads from disk, always readable, secrets redacted, and excluded categories. No contradictions or missing behavioral traits.

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 concise sentences. The first sentence states the action and scope, the second adds key behavioral details (source, availability, redaction, exclusions). No redundant information.

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?

For a simple read tool with one param and no output schema, the description covers source, availability, redaction, and exclusions. It lacks explicit description of the output format, but the purpose is clear.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% with an enum and description for 'area'. The description adds value by listing the enum values in context and explaining what is not included (other categories), which supplements the 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 explicitly states 'Reads settings.json' and lists the specific areas covered (tracking/output/graphics/audio/connections/misc). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by listing what is excluded (props, colliders, etc.) and noting their dedicated tools.

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 provides context about the data source (disk) and availability (always readable regardless of VNyan running). It implicitly guides usage by excluding other areas, but does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives beyond referencing other tools.

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