Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Pugi

by io.pugi
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

Keep a logo

select_logo
Idempotent

Use this when the person picks one of the Pugi logos shown in this conversation (in the card or in words, such as "the second one"). Saves that logo for their business and returns the summary a website or app will be built from: show it and wait. Call again with correction when they change anything in the summary. Draws and buys nothing.

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": {
      "logo_id": "<logo_id>"
    },
    "name": "select_logo"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
logo_idYesThe logo_id of the picked logo, from the last logo result.
languageNoThe person's language.
correctionNoThe person's correction to the summary, in their own words.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / correction
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The person's correction to the summary, in their own words.",
+  "maxLength": 600,
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / language
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "The person's language.",
+  "maxLength": 20,
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / logo_id / description
      Added value: +"The logo_id of the picked logo, from the last logo result."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare a non-read-only, non-destructive, idempotent mutation. The description adds useful workflow behavior beyond that: it saves the logo for their business, returns the summary to show and wait on, supports correction calls, and explicitly draws or buys nothing.

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 front-loaded with the usage trigger, then covers saving, returning the summary, waiting, correction, and exclusions. Every sentence earns its place and there is no redundant restatement.

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, the description carries the burden of explaining the return: a summary to show and wait on. It also covers the correction loop and non-drawing/non-purchasing behavior, though it could say a bit more about what the summary contains or how the saved logo is subsequently used.

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 all three parameters are already documented in the schema. The description reinforces that correction applies to summary changes but does not add meaningful detail about logo_id or language 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?

The description states a specific action: saving a logo the person picked from previously shown Pugi logos and returning the summary for a future website or app. It clearly distinguishes selection from generation with 'Draws and buys nothing,' so an agent can tell it apart from make_logo and refine_logo.

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?

It gives a clear trigger: use when the person picks one of the logos shown, in the card or in words, and call again with correction when the summary changes. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives such as make_logo or refine_logo, but the 'picks one of the Pugi logos shown' framing establishes the usage context well.

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