Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
cp77wb-mcp

cp77wb-mcp

by 0xra0
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

wb_native_template_plan

Generates or writes a WolvenKit template-capture wscript targeting exactly the RED types an export uses, previewing by default without writing files.

Instructions

Plan or write a WolvenKit template-capture wscript for exactly the RED types used by an export. write=false by default.

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": {
      "export_file": "<export_file>",
      "output": "<output>"
    },
    "name": "wb_native_template_plan"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
writeNo
outputYes
export_fileYes
resource_nameNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses that write=false by default, which is useful, but it does not explain what write=true does, whether files are overwritten, what permissions are needed, or what the tool returns.

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?

The description is compact and front-loaded, with no filler. However, the compression makes some terms opaque, and 'plan or write' leaves two modes underexplained.

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 four-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It does not cover parameter meanings, prerequisites, side effects of write mode, or expected output, leaving the agent with significant gaps.

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 all four parameters. It only clarifies the default for write and loosely implies export_file through 'used by an export'; output and resource_name remain unexplained, and even export_file is not explicitly defined.

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 action and resource: planning or writing a WolvenKit template-capture wscript for RED types used by an export. It is understandable in context, but it does not distinguish this tool from nearby siblings such as wb_native_template_verify or wb_native_json, and the jargon reduces immediate clarity.

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?

The only usage guidance is 'write=false by default,' which implies planning is the default mode. It does not say when to use this tool versus alternatives like verify, preflight, or import, nor when write=true is appropriate.

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