Skip to main content
Glama
wfbcargo

spawn-mcp

by wfbcargo
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

spawn_validate

Validate a Spawn game project before pushing: pre-flight checks parse scripts and templates, verify .scene headers and cell keys, confirm image bytes match extensions, and reject binary assets.

Instructions

Check the project before pushing. ON ENGINE 6.0+ (git lane) there is no server-side validator — the push itself is the authority and refuses typed, naming the row, the line and the field — so this runs a LOCAL pre-flight over the tree instead: every script and template is ESM-parsed, .scene files are checked against the # spawn-scene v2 yaml <cellKey> header and their filename's cell key, image bytes are checked against their extension, and binaries under assets/ are caught (law.git.asset-kind refuses them). Clean here does NOT mean the push will land. ON A PRE-6.0 WORLD it is unchanged: compile the project and run authoritative server-side schema validation. Either way, valid is not the same as good — it says nothing about how the result looks or feels, which comes from the skills you loaded (spawn_skill) before writing the code.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
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. Changed1 schema field 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"
+}
  2. First observedv1.2.0

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it enumerates what is actually checked (ESM parse of scripts/templates, .scene header vs filename cell key, image bytes vs extension, binaries under assets/), discloses that clean does not guarantee the push lands, and that valid is not the same as good. This is exactly the behavioral context an agent needs for a validator.

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 the core action and the engine-era branching, and every clause is information-dense. It is long and slightly repetitive (the local-vs-server contrast is restated), but no sentence is pure filler.

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 tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description is nearly complete: it explains both engine-era behaviors, the assertion semantics, and the limits of the result. A brief note on the failure/return shape would close the last gap, though the absence of an output schema lessens the obligation.

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 baseline is 3; the schema already documents projectDir and the engineVersion 'assertion, not override' semantics. The description repeats the assertion idea but adds no parameter detail beyond what the schema provides.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('Check the project before pushing') and immediately distinguishes itself from spawn_push by explaining that on engine 6.0+ the push is the authority and this is a LOCAL pre-flight, while pre-6.0 it runs server-side schema validation. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does and how it differs from the sibling that ships code.

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?

Clearly says when to use it ('before pushing') and names the related tools (spawn_push as the authority, spawn_skill as the source of visual/feel quality). It does not state an explicit when-not-to-use condition, but the pre-push context is unambiguous.

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