Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Pugi

by io.pugi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Change the logos

refine_logo
DestructiveIdempotent

Use this when the person asks to change Pugi logos already shown in this conversation: other colours, a calmer or bolder mood, another icon or font, "like the second one but blue". Draws four new options from the same brief with that change, without asking anything; it does not edit one chosen design. Pass exactly one of logo_id (from the last logo result) or question_token (from the logo card). Do not use for a different business name (use make_logo).

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": {
      "change": "<change>",
      "idempotency_key": "<idempotency_key>"
    },
    "name": "refine_logo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
changeYesThe change in the person's own words, for example "make it blue and calmer".
logo_idNoThe logo_id of one of the logos to change, from the last logo result (the picked one when there is one). Leave it out when you pass question_token.
languageNoThe language the person writes in, as a BCP 47 tag such as "ru".
question_tokenNoThe question_token of the logo card, when you have no logo_id. Leave it out when you pass logo_id.
idempotency_keyYesA unique string for this call, reused only to retry it.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / logo_id / description
      Previous value: -"The logo_id of one of the logos to change, from the last logo result (the picked one when there is one)."New value: +"The logo_id of one of the logos to change, from the last logo result (the picked one when there is one). Leave it out when you pass question_token."
    • addedInput schema / properties / question_token
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The question_token of the logo card, when you have no logo_id. Leave it out when you pass logo_id.",
+  "maxLength": 64,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / required
      Previous value: -[
-  "logo_id",
-  "change",
-  "idempotency_key"
-]New value: +[
+  "change",
+  "idempotency_key"
+]
  2. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Adds real behavior beyond annotations: it returns four new options rather than mutating a chosen design, it never asks a clarifying question, and it reuses the same brief. Annotations already flag the mutation/idempotency/open-world profile, so the remaining gap is minor — no note on what happens to previously generated logos or how the results are keyed.

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?

Three tight sentences, front-loaded with the trigger before the mechanics and the exclusion last. No restatement of the title or name, no 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 five-parameter generator with no output schema, the description covers the trigger, the return cardinality (four options), the id-source rules, and the sibling boundary. Slightly short of complete only because it does not say how the new options relate to earlier ones or whether the prior set is superseded.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline would be 3, but the description supplies a constraint the schema cannot express: pass exactly one of logo_id or question_token, with the fallback ordering (question_token only when you have no logo_id). That is genuine coordination logic beyond the flat property list.

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 (draw four new logo options from the same brief with a change) and immediately distinguishes itself from the closest siblings: make_logo for a different business name, and single-design editing which it explicitly does not do. An agent can route correctly without opening any 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?

Gives a concrete trigger (the person asks to change already-shown Pugi logos), enumerates example phrasings, names the exclusion (different business name -> make_logo), and states it proceeds 'without asking anything'. When-to-use, when-not-to-use, and the alternative are all explicit.

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

All Pugi toolsInspect
Try in Browser
Claude Code, inside the Godot 4 editorFlockbay puts an AI agent in the real Godot 4 editor: it writes GDScript, runs your game and fixes what breaks. Free, or bring your own Claude Code or Codex.flockbay.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources