coppeliasim-mcp

crear_primitiva

Create a primitive (cube, sphere, cylinder, cone, capsule, disc, toroid) in the scene at a given position and size, returning its path. Use an alias to keep the reference stable.

Instructions

Crea una forma primitiva en la escena y devuelve su ruta.

forma: 'cubo', 'esfera', 'cilindro', 'cono', 'capsula', 'disco', 'toroide'. Tamaños y posición en metros. alias: nombre con el que quedará en la escena. Sin él CoppeliaSim las llama 'Cuboid', 'Cuboid[0]', 'Cuboid[1]'..., y como emparentar renumera a los hermanos, la ruta que te devolvió una llamada puede referirse a otra pieza tres llamadas después. Con nombres propios eso no pasa.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`x`	No
`y`	No
`z`	No
`alias`	No
`forma`	Yes
`tamano_x`	No
`tamano_y`	No
`tamano_z`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed1 schema field changedv0.4.0Aug 26, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / alias
```
Added value: +{
+  "default": "",
+  "title": "Alias",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
First observedv0.1.1Aug 21, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does a good job by revealing that the tool returns a path, that unnamed objects receive default CoppeliaSim names, and that parenting can rename siblings and invalidate previously returned paths. This is a critical side-effect warning. It does not discuss error cases or whether simulation must be running, but the core behavioral risk is well covered.

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 compact and front-loaded. The primary purpose appears in the first sentence, followed by a concise parameter legend and a necessary warning about alias behavior. Every sentence adds value; there is no fluff or repetition.

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?

Given that there is an output schema and 8 parameters with no annotations, the description covers the essential operational context: what is created, what values are accepted, units of measurement, and a subtle path-stability caveat. It does not cover duplicate-alias behavior or whether the scene must be in a particular state, but these are secondary gaps rather than fundamental omissions.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The schema has 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It does so by listing valid values for 'forma', stating that sizes and position are in meters, and explaining the 'alias' parameter's role and its impact on path stability. This adds meaning beyond the bare schema names, though it does not explicitly map each coordinate or size parameter to its intended semantic beyond 'position' and 'sizes'.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Crea una forma primitiva en la escena y devuelve su ruta.' It clearly identifies the action, the object being created, and the return value. It also enumerates the supported primitive types, making the tool's scope unambiguous and distinguishing it from sibling creation tools like crear_junta or cargar_modelo.

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?

Usage context is implied: use this tool when you need to create a primitive shape such as a cube, sphere, or cylinder. However, it does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like cargar_modelo for importing models or crear_junta for joints. The guidance is enough to infer intent but not explicit about trade-offs.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.