Set or retrieve gravity magnitude, direction, and physics FPS to control game world physics.
Get/set gravity, physics FPS, and world settings
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| action | No | Action: get or set. Default: get | |
| gravity | No | Gravity magnitude | |
| physicsFps | No | Physics ticks per second | |
| gravityDirection | No | Gravity direction vector {x,y,z} |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure, but it only says 'get/set' without explaining side effects, persistence, whether settings apply immediately, or what happens when setting only some parameters. It also does not describe the return value for a 'get' action.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is concise and front-loaded, matching the tool's purpose in a single sentence. It could be slightly more specific, but there is no unnecessary verbosity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has four optional parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description is too minimal to be fully complete. It does not explain action semantics, defaults, return format, or the relationship between gravity and gravityDirection, leaving an agent to guess important details.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all four parameters. The description adds minimal value beyond naming 'gravity' and 'physics FPS', but does not clarify how 'world settings' maps to the remaining parameters or how the action parameter controls behavior.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool gets or sets gravity, physics FPS, and world settings, using a specific verb and resource. However, 'world settings' is somewhat vague and the description does not explicitly distinguish this tool from related siblings like game_physics_3d or game_time_scale.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies the tool is used for adjusting physics world parameters, but gives no explicit guidance on when to use it versus alternatives. There is no mention of exclusions, prerequisites, or how it differs from similar physics-related tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.