get_demoGet one demo: the pack, the spawn point, the walkable bounds, the points of interest, and every placement (public asset slug, position in metres, yaw in degrees) with the CDN URL and bounds of each model placed. Load the models with a plain GLTFLoader and apply the transforms to reproduce the scene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| slug | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully discloses behavior. It lists every piece of data returned, provides units (metres, degrees), and even instructs how to load models (GLTFLoader with transforms). This goes beyond typical transparency and gives the agent actionable details on output structure and usage.
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 a single, information-dense sentence that front-loads the purpose and then lists components and usage. It is appropriately sized for the complexity of the output, with no wasted words. The structure is logical and easy to scan.
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?
Given there is no output schema, the description fully specifies what the tool returns and how to interpret it. It covers the pack, spawn point, bounds, points of interest, and each placement with coordinates and model URLs, plus instructions on loading. Nothing needed for a correct call is missing, except maybe error handling, which is not essential for a getter.
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?
The schema has one parameter 'slug' with format constraints but no description, and schema coverage is 0%. The description does not explicitly explain that 'slug' identifies the demo, though it is implied by 'Get one demo'. The pattern and length hint at an identifier, but the description fails to add semantic meaning or clarify the expected format beyond the schema.
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 fetches a single demo and enumerates the exact contents: pack, spawn point, walkable bounds, points of interest, and each placement with CDN URL and bounds. It distinguishes from siblings like get_pack (pack metadata) and list_demos (listing) by focusing on the complete demo layout for reproduction.
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 usage when you need a specific demo's layout, but it doesn't explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. There is no mention of list_demos for discovering demos or get_pack for pack-only data. The context is clear but exclusions are not stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.