Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
game-knowledge MCP Server

game-knowledge MCP Server

by xiachenggang
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

search_api

Search for Cocos Creator or exia-framework APIs by keyword, in Chinese or English, to locate relevant classes and functions.

Instructions

按关键词搜索框架或Cocos API，支持中英文

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": {
      "query": "<query>"
    },
    "name": "search_api"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYes搜索关键词，如"延迟执行"、"窗口显示"、"资源加载"
sourceNo搜索范围all

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the full behavioral disclosure burden. It only mentions keyword search and bilingual support, but fails to disclose read-only nature, result format, pagination, or other behavioral traits. This is a significant gap.

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?

The description is a single, concise sentence that immediately conveys the tool's purpose with no unnecessary detail. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource.

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

Completeness3/5

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

The tool is simple, and the description covers its core purpose. However, it lacks any mention of return values or usage context, and no output schema exists to compensate. It is minimally sufficient but not comprehensive.

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?

The schema already provides full descriptions for both parameters: query includes examples like '延迟执行' and source includes an enum with meaning. With 100% schema description coverage, the description does not need to add parameter details, so baseline 3 applies.

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 '按关键词搜索框架或Cocos API' (search by keyword for framework or Cocos API), specifying a concrete verb and resource. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_module, get_class, and get_method, which are targeted retrievals rather than broad searches.

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?

The description provides no guidance on when to use this tool instead of siblings. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or exclusions, leaving the agent without direction for tool selection.

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