Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cp77wb-mcp

cp77wb-mcp

by 0xra0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

wb_live_move

Moves the current World Builder selection as a single undoable history action, with preview by default and apply=true to commit the change.

Instructions

Move the current World Builder selection as one WB history action. 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>"
    },
    "name": "wb_live_move"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xNo
yNo
zNo
applyNo
rpc_dirYes
timeoutNo

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 carries the full burden, and it does disclose two meaningful behaviors: the operation is non-destructive by default (preview) and it is recorded as a single undoable history action. It omits whether coordinates are relative or absolute, units, whether a live connection must be established, and what a preview returns, which matters for a mutation on a 'live' tool.

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?

Two short sentences, no filler, with the safety-relevant default front-loaded after the action statement.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a six-parameter mutating live tool with no annotations and no output schema, the definition covers only the preview/apply switch and history atomicity. It leaves the coordinate meaning, the required rpc_dir, timeout behavior, and preview output shape undocumented.

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 six parameters, and the description only explains 'apply'. The semantics of x/y/z (offset vs absolute target?), rpc_dir (required), and timeout are left entirely to guesswork, so the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.

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 ('Move') and resource ('the current World Builder selection'), plus the atomicity guarantee ('as one WB history action'). That distinguishes it from the many generator/array siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts with wb_move or wb_live_rotate.

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?

The clause 'Preview unless apply=true' tells the agent the default is a dry run and how to commit, which is real usage guidance. However, there is no statement of when this tool is preferable to wb_move, wb_live_rotate, or wb_live_batch, so the agent must infer the choice.

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