Skip to main content
Glama
Hbler

parti-mcp

by Hbler
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

render_floor_plan

Converts a structured FloorPlanSpec into SVG floor plans, one SVG per floor, with rooms, walls, openings, dimensions, and structural grid, in blueprint or whiteprint styles.

Instructions

Renders an interior floor plan (floors, rooms, walls, door/window openings, dimensions, structural grid) from a FloorPlanSpec. Returns one SVG per floor. See the server instructions for conventions and the coherence contract.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
specYesFloorPlanSpec object (or JSON string) defining the floor plan. See this schema's properties for every field.
outputPathNoOptional file path to write the SVG (relative to the server's allowed output/ directory). If omitted, the SVG is returned as tool content only.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changedv1.1.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / spec / properties / floors / items / properties / rooms / items / properties / labelOrientation
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "horizontal",
+    "vertical"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / spec / properties / floors / items / properties / rooms / items / properties / labelPosition
      Added value: +{
+  "enum": [
+    "center",
+    "top-left",
+    "top",
+    "top-right",
+    "left",
+    "right",
+    "bottom-left",
+    "bottom",
+    "bottom-right"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries most of the behavioral disclosure burden. It does disclose the main output behavior—'Returns one SVG per floor'—and points to server instructions for conventions and the coherence contract. However, it does not surface the outputPath side effect (writing a file) or validation/error behavior, so transparency is adequate but incomplete.

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?

The description is two sentences with the main action and return behavior front-loaded. It includes a useful compact list of rendered elements and adds a pointer to conventions without unnecessary fluff. Every sentence earns its place.

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?

The tool consumes a deeply nested FloorPlanSpec, has no output schema, and relies on a short description plus 'server instructions' for important behavior. It covers the obvious use case and return shape, but an agent still may not know what happens when outputPath is set or where the coherence contract is defined. The definition is minimally viable but leaves dependency on external context.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters well, including that spec is a FloorPlanSpec object or JSON string and that outputPath controls file writing versus in-content return. Schema description coverage is 100%, so the description adds no meaningful parameter semantics beyond naming FloorPlanSpec. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 names a concrete action and resource: it 'Renders an interior floor plan' from a FloorPlanSpec, and enumerates what is included (floors, rooms, walls, door/window openings, dimensions, structural grid). It also states the return shape: 'Returns one SVG per floor'. The 'interior' qualifier clearly separates it from the sibling tool render_site_plan.

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

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

The description makes the use case clear: use it when you have a FloorPlanSpec and need interior floor plan renderings. It stops short of explicitly naming render_site_plan as the alternative or listing when-not-to-use cases, but 'interior' plus the sibling tool name supplies the boundary. This is clear context with only a minor lack of explicit exclusions.

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