Zhihuo RotoSpider Layout
Server Details
Rotomolding mold-on-arm layout feasibility: which molds fit on a machine arm/spider, and how.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 4.2/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.
The two tools serve completely different purposes: one is a specialized mold layout checker, the other is a generic feedback relay. There is no possibility of confusion.
Both tool names follow the same verb_noun pattern with underscores: check_mold_layout and send_feedback. This is consistent and predictable.
The tool count of 2 is very minimal for a server that ostensibly covers mold layout checking. While the feedback tool is a useful auxiliary, the core domain only has one tool, which feels thin.
The core tool check_mold_layout is detailed but is the only domain operation. There are no tools for listing machines, retrieving default values, or managing layouts, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
Available Tools
2 toolscheck_mold_layoutARead-onlyIdempotentInspect
Check whether molds fit together on a rotational-molding machine arm.
Every answer comes from the deterministic RotoSpider geometric layout
engine: rotation-envelope and dead-height checks, pairwise mold-to-mold
clearance, offset-arm riser selection, and ring arrangements for 3+
identical molds. It never returns a physically invalid layout.
Args:
molds: List of mold objects, ALL DIMENSIONS IN MILLIMETRES.
Box/frame mold: {"length_mm": L, "width_mm": W, "height_mm": H}.
Cylinder/tank mold: {"diameter_mm": D, "height_mm": H}.
Optional per mold: "name", "weight_kg", "quantity" (default 1).
machine: Preset machine model (2300, 2600B, 2600C, 3100, 3500B,
4600 - a representative carousel ladder). Leave empty AND give
no explicit geometry to scan the whole ladder ("which machine
can take these molds?").
arm_type: 'straight' (dual spiders) or 'offset' (single-spider
offset/L arm). Empty = both.
spider_diameter_mm: Custom machine - spider (mounting plate)
diameter. Giving this plus envelope_diameter_mm switches to
custom-machine mode instead of presets.
envelope_diameter_mm: Custom machine - rotation envelope diameter
(for offset arms: the vertical envelope diameter).
dead_height_mm: Custom straight arm - unusable center height
between the upper and lower spider surfaces.
offset_spider_y_mm: Custom offset arm - spider Y offset from the
spider center to the sphere center (required for custom offset).
offset_horz_diameter_mm: Custom offset arm - horizontal usable
envelope diameter after side trim (defaults to envelope).
riser_heights_mm: Custom offset arm - available riser heights; the
solver picks the best (or none).
max_load_weight_kg: Optional arm weight capacity; the solver loads
molds only up to this total weight.
clearance_target_mm: Target mold-to-mold clearance (default 300).
clearance_min_mm: Minimum acceptable clearance (default 150).
Returns a summary sentence plus per-arm results: feasible, placed vs
requested counts (per mold type when available), selected riser height,
spider utilization, center-of-gravity offset, achieved clearance, and
the engine's reason when molds do not fit.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| molds | Yes | ||
| machine | No | ||
| arm_type | No | ||
| dead_height_mm | No | ||
| clearance_min_mm | No | ||
| riser_heights_mm | No | ||
| max_load_weight_kg | No | ||
| offset_spider_y_mm | No | ||
| spider_diameter_mm | No | ||
| clearance_target_mm | No | ||
| envelope_diameter_mm | No | ||
| offset_horz_diameter_mm | No |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description adds substantial behavioral details: it uses a deterministic engine, performs specific geometric checks, guarantees no physically invalid layout, and describes the output format. No contradiction with annotations.
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 well-structured: a one-line summary, an overview paragraph, and a detailed Args section. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. Every sentence adds value for a complex tool with 12 parameters, with no redundancy.
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 the tool's complexity, lack of output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers purpose, behavior, all parameters, and output structure adequately. It could be improved with an example output or clarification of error handling, but overall it is sufficiently complete.
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?
With 0% schema description coverage, the description fully compensates by providing a detailed Args section that explains each parameter's purpose, units, formats, and conditional behaviors (e.g., custom-machine mode, scanning all machines). This enables correct invocation.
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 verb 'check' and the resource 'whether molds fit together on a rotational-molding machine arm'. It also summarizes the specific geometric checks performed. The sibling tool 'send_feedback' is unrelated, so there is no confusion.
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 provides usage hints through parameter descriptions (e.g., leaving machine empty to scan all machines), but lacks explicit statements about when to use this tool versus alternatives. No mention of the sibling tool or other options, leaving the agent to infer usage context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
send_feedbackAInspect
Relay a user question, bug report, or suggestion to the maintainers.
Args:
message: The user's feedback text (required).
contact: Optional reply address the user volunteers.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| contact | No | ||
| message | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, and the description states 'Relay' which implies a mutation (sending data). No additional behavioral traits beyond annotations are disclosed, such as side effects or permission requirements.
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 very concise, with a clear first sentence stating the purpose, followed by a bulleted list of arguments. No redundant information exists.
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?
For a simple tool with two parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description provides sufficient context to understand its purpose and how to use it effectively.
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 description adds meaning by explaining 'message' as the feedback text (required) and 'contact' as an optional reply address. Since the schema has 0% description coverage, the description compensates well, though parameter names are somewhat self-explanatory.
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 relays user questions, bug reports, or suggestions to maintainers. This specific verb and resource differentiate it from the sibling tool 'check_mold_layout' which is unrelated.
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 for any user feedback but does not provide explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. However, given the simple nature, it is minimally adequate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!