Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
ASCII Motion MCP

ASCII Motion MCP

by CameronFoxly
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

select_by_color

Select cells matching foreground color from a starting coordinate, with options to match character, background, or restrict to contiguous cells.

Instructions

Select cells that match specific criteria (magic wand style)

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": {
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "select_by_color"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xYesStarting X coordinate
yYesStarting Y coordinate
matchCharNoMatch character
matchColorNoMatch foreground color
matchBgColorNoMatch background color
contiguousNoOnly select connected cells

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.1.4

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The 'magic wand style' hint suggests region-growing behavior, but the description does not disclose details like what happens if no match is found, selection boundary behavior, or performance characteristics. Since annotations are absent, the description carries the burden and provides minimal additional context.

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 a single, concise sentence that packs essential information. However, it could benefit from a slightly more structured format or additional context, such as a comparison to similar tools.

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

Completeness3/5

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

Given the tool has 6 parameters and no output schema, the description provides a reasonable overview but lacks details on selection expansion logic and edge cases. It is adequate but not thorough.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no new parameter-level information beyond what the schema already provides.

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 ('Select cells') and the method ('magic wand style'), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like 'select_rectangle' and 'clear_selection'. The reference to matching specific criteria aligns with the parameters provided.

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 via the 'magic wand' metaphor but does not explicitly compare to alternative selection tools or provide criteria for when to use this tool over others. No exclusions or contexts are mentioned.

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