Skip to main content
Glama
wfbcargo

spawn-mcp

by wfbcargo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

spawn_status

Report a Spawn project's current state: masked env, credentials, docs, engine era and version, plus remote git divergence or published version details.

Instructions

Where this project stands. Always reports env (masked), credential source, docs present, and — once credentials allow — the world's ENGINE (era + semver), which decides everything else. On engine 6.0+ the remote block is git: branch, HEAD, how many commits ahead of and behind origin, and the uncommitted files. On a pre-6.0 world it is the version rail: base version, conflict receipts, headVersion vs publishedVersion.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
remoteNoWhen credentials exist, also read the remote (git divergence, or head + published versions)
projectDirNoAbsolute path to the Spawn game project (game.json / .env). Defaults to SPAWN_PROJECT_DIR or the MCP process cwd.
engineVersionNoOptional engine version this call assumes: a semver ('6.0.0', '5.4') or an era name ('6.0' for a git world, 'document' for a pre-6.0 one). Omit it and the world's engine is detected from the API and cached. When passed it is CHECKED against the real pin and a mismatch fails the call without writing anything — it is an assertion, not an override.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv2.0.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / engineVersion
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Optional engine version this call assumes: a semver ('6.0.0', '5.4') or an era name ('6.0' for a git world, 'document' for a pre-6.0 one). Omit it and the world's engine is detected from the API and cached. When passed it is CHECKED against the real pin and a mismatch fails the call without writing anything — it is an assertion, not an override.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / remote / description
      Previous value: -"When credentials exist, also fetch head + published (mode=live) versions"New value: +"When credentials exist, also read the remote (git divergence, or head + published versions)"
  2. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does disclose meaningful traits: env is masked, the remote block is credential-gated, engine is detected/cached, and the engine era changes what the remote block contains. However it omits read-only/permission expectations and any rate or cost considerations, leaving gaps for a no-annotation tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with a one-line purpose, then organized by engine era (6.0+ git block vs pre-6.0 version rail). Slightly wordy with figurative phrasing ('the world's ENGINE ... which decides everything else', 'version rail'), but most sentences carry useful 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?

With no output schema, the description must convey return values, and it does so thoroughly for both engine eras. It is essentially complete for a status tool, though it could note that output shape depends on credential availability and detection caching more explicitly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all three parameters (remote, projectDir, engineVersion) including the assertion-vs-override semantics. The description adds the concept of a 'remote block' but no parameter syntax or format beyond what the schema provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description identifies this as a project-level status/diagnostic readout and enumerates specific content (masked env, credential source, docs, engine era+semver, git or version rail). This makes the resource and scope concrete. It does not explicitly differentiate from sibling status tools like spawn_savi_status or spawn_play_status, so it stops short of a 5.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no statement of when to call this versus alternatives such as spawn_getting_started, spawn_latest, spawn_me, or the other *_status siblings. Usage is only implied by the description of what it reports, which is not enough guidance for an agent choosing among many tools.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools