Skip to main content
Glama

wb_live_batch

Apply batch move, rotate, scale, and snap operations to the current World Builder selection as one undo transaction, with preview unless apply is true.

Instructions

Apply move/rotate/scale/snap operations to the current selection as one World Builder undo transaction. Preview unless apply=true.

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": {
      "rpc_dir": "<rpc_dir>",
      "operations": "<operations>"
    },
    "name": "wb_live_batch"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
applyNo
rpc_dirYes
timeoutNo
operationsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry the whole load, and it does disclose two important traits: the batch is atomic under a single undo transaction, and it is a no-op preview by default. It omits what a preview returns, whether the batch fails all-or-nothing on an invalid operation, and any live-session/auth requirements.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

Two tight sentences, front-loaded with the operation set and scope, then the preview/apply switch. No filler; the only shortfall is that brevity comes at the cost of the missing parameter detail.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a mutating batch tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers intent and atomicity but leaves parameter meanings (rpc_dir, timeout, operation object shape) and preview response content undocumented, so an agent still has to guess before calling.

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

Parameters2/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across 4 parameters, so the description must compensate. It explains 'apply' semantics and implies what 'operations' contains, but says nothing about 'rpc_dir' (presumably the connection/target directory) or 'timeout', leaving half the parameters undefined everywhere.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb set (apply move/rotate/scale/snap), the target (current selection), and the transactional scope (one World Builder undo transaction). This clearly distinguishes it from single-op siblings like wb_live_move or wb_live_rotate, though it doesn't name those alternatives explicitly.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

'Preview unless apply=true' implies the dry-run-first workflow, which is genuine usage guidance, but there is no explicit statement of when to choose this over issuing individual wb_live_move/wb_live_rotate/wb_live_scale calls, nor any prerequisites.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools