Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
lego-mcp

lego-mcp

by Axel-Jalonen
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

new_build

Initialize a new Lego build on an empty baseplate of specified width and depth, replacing any existing build. The previous build remains saved on disk.

Instructions

Start a fresh build on an empty baseplate of width x depth studs. Replaces the current build (previous one stays saved on disk).

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "new_build"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNobuild
depthNo
widthNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It clearly states that the tool 'replaces the current build' (destructive to in-memory state) while preserving previous saves, which is key for a mutation tool. This goes beyond basic description.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value without redundancy. Highly concise and well-structured.

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

Completeness4/5

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

Despite missing annotation and parameter coverage, the description covers the essential behavior and side effects for a simple tool. A small gap is the lack of mention about return type or success confirmation, but with an output schema present, this is acceptable.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'width' and 'depth' by linking them to the baseplate dimensions, but omits the 'name' parameter entirely. Partially helpful but incomplete.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the action 'Start a fresh build' and the resource 'empty baseplate of width x depth studs'. It distinguishes from sibling tools like load_build and get_build by indicating it creates a new build, not loading or viewing existing ones.

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 description implies usage for starting a new build, but does not explicitly state when to use versus alternatives (e.g., load_build, get_build). No 'when not' or prerequisite conditions are provided, leaving inference to the agent.

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