Skip to main content
Glama

wb_scatter

Deterministically scatter copies of a Cyberpunk 2077 World Builder object inside an offline box; preview with a dry-run or set write=true to apply.

Instructions

Deterministically scatter copies inside an offline box. Dry-run unless write=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": {
      "file": "<file>",
      "path": "<path>",
      "count": "<count>"
    },
    "name": "wb_scatter"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
fileYes
pathYes
seedNo
countYes
writeNo
half_xNo
half_yNo
half_zNo
scale_maxNo
scale_minNo
random_yawNo
create_scaleNo
keep_noderefsNo
noderef_prefixNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must carry behavioral disclosure. It usefully states that execution is deterministic and that it defaults to dry-run unless write=true, which is critical for a mutation tool. However, it omits most other behavioral details, such as what gets created, how existing objects are affected, and whether special permissions are needed.

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, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the critical write-gating behavior. There is no filler or redundancy.

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 14-parameter mutation tool with no annotations, no output schema, and no parameter descriptions, this is far too sparse. The description provides the basic purpose and dry-run behavior but leaves the agent without enough information to understand most parameters or side effects.

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 coverage is 0% across 14 parameters, so the description must compensate heavily. It only indirectly clarifies write via write=true, seed via 'deterministically', count via 'copies', and perhaps half_x/half_y/half_z via 'box'; most parameters remain unexplained in both schema and description.

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: scatter copies inside an offline box. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from sibling scatter tools such as wb_polygon_scatter, wb_volume_scatter, or wb_live_surface_scatter.

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 condition is the dry-run default and the write=true switch. There is no guidance on when to use this instead of the many sibling array/scatter tools, nor are prerequisites or exclusions 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