Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cp77wb-mcp

cp77wb-mcp

by 0xra0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

wb_live_select

Select exact paths in the active World Builder UI, previewing changes by default; set apply=true to commit the selection.

Instructions

Select exact paths in the active World Builder UI. 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>",
      "paths": "<paths>"
    },
    "name": "wb_live_select"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
applyNo
pathsYes
rpc_dirYes
timeoutNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3.1/5.0
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 one important behavior: the call is a preview unless apply=true, so the agent knows the default is non-committing. It omits whether selection replaces or extends the current selection, whether it is undoable, and any permission or UI-state prerequisites.

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 short sentences, front-loaded with the action and then the key safety behavior. Nothing is wasted, though the extreme brevity borders on under-specification rather than tightness.

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?

A four-parameter mutation tool with zero schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema needs substantially more: what rpc_dir points at, what timeout bounds, what the preview returns, and how selection interacts with existing state. Only the preview/apply distinction is covered.

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%, so the description must explain the four parameters; it only clarifies apply (preview vs commit) and implicitly 'paths'. rpc_dir and timeout get no meaning at all, which leaves two of four parameters opaque.

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 concrete verb+resource+scope: 'Select exact paths in the active World Builder UI.' The qualifier 'exact' hints at a contrast with search-style siblings, but no sibling is named, so the agent must infer the difference from wb_live_selection or wb_find.

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' gives one useful usage rule (default is dry-run), but the description never says when to reach for this tool instead of wb_live_selection, wb_semantic_search, or wb_live_batch. Context is implied rather than stated.

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