Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cp77wb-mcp

cp77wb-mcp

by 0xra0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

wb_live_selection

Read the current World Builder selection through the optional CET bridge to retrieve live selection data for inspection and editing.

Instructions

Read current World Builder selection through the optional CET bridge.

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_selection"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rpc_dirYes
timeoutNo
include_dataNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.6/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full disclosure burden. It implies a read-only operation and a bridge dependency, but says nothing about behavior when the bridge is unavailable, what the call returns, or how failures surface — important for a tool whose very name references an external bridge.

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?

One short sentence with the core action and scope front-loaded and no wasted wording. It is under-specified rather than verbose, which is a different problem from structure.

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 tool with three undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, a single sentence is far too thin. Nothing is said about return values or the bridge precondition, leaving the agent to guess at both the call and its result.

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

Parameters1/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0% across three parameters, and the description mentions none of them. The required rpc_dir, plus timeout and include_data, are completely opaque without inference, so the description fails to 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?

The description states a specific verb and resource ("Read current World Builder selection"), which is enough to know the operation. It does not distinguish itself from the many nearby live-bridge siblings such as wb_live_select, wb_live_state, or wb_live_player, so the agent must still infer which one applies.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no guidance on when to use this versus wb_live_select or wb_live_state, and no stated prerequisite beyond the passing mention of the "optional CET bridge." The word "optional" is ambiguous — it is unclear whether the tool fails or falls back when the bridge is absent.

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