Skip to main content
Glama

Plazmi

by gg.plazmi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

build

House parts only (a porch, a roof, a bay window …): for a piece on the playa use the playa tool, and for a pavilion on a plot on the Commons the plots tool. Build a house part the whole way (your first is yours to build from what you gather; after that, parts are unlocked with glow): the trips to the wilds for what's short (each carried home to a pile in the yard), the made materials at the bench, then the building itself at home, in stages anyone can watch. Every step goes on your plan with real clock times; plan shows them and plan cancel takes one off. The same as do "build ". Neighbours can lend a hand with do "help build".

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
keyNoYour Plazmi key, pz_…; only needed when this chat doesn't remember you.
partYesThe part: its id (seaside/turned-posts), its name, or a word in it (porch).

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Your Plazmi key, pz_…; only needed when this chat doesn't remember you.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • removedInput schema / properties / key
      Removed value: -{
-  "description": "Your Plazmi key, pz_…; only needed when this chat doesn't remember you.",
-  "type": "string"
-}
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / key
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Your Plazmi key, pz_…; only needed when this chat doesn't remember you.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  4. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare the mutating, non-idempotent, closed-world profile, and the description adds real context: the multi-stage workflow (wilds gathering → bench crafting → home building), that stages are publicly watchable, that progress lands on a plan with real clock times, and that 'plan cancel <n>' removes one. The only gap is it never says what a failed or already-unlocked build returns, but given annotation coverage this is a strong disclosure.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The disambiguation is correctly front-loaded, but the body is one long, jargon-dense run-on ('the trips to the wilds for what's short', 'glow', 'the same as do "build <part>"') that costs the model more parsing effort than the information warrants. Each clause does carry information, so it earns its place semantically even though the packaging is heavy.

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 and an async, multi-stage process, the description steps in to explain the stage sequence, where progress is recorded, and how to cancel. The remaining gap is what the caller sees on success or on an already-unlocked part, which is minor for a closed-world game action.

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 coverage is 100% and the schema itself explains accepted forms (id, name, or a word in it) plus the optional key. The description adds nothing beyond what the schema and the workflow text already imply, which is the expected baseline when the schema does the work.

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 opening sentence states a specific verb+resource ('House parts only') and immediately names the two sibling tools it is not (playa, plots) with the condition that selects them. An agent can route between build, playa, and plots without opening a schema.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly states when-not-to-use: playa pieces go to the playa tool and Commons pavilions go to the plots tool. It also documents the progression gate (first part free, later parts need glow) and the collaboration path ('do "help <name> build"'), so the agent knows both the alternative tools and the prerequisites.

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

All Plazmi toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources