Font Design MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

glyph_get

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get glyph metrics and geometry from a font master. Choose summary for basic data or full detail for contours, points, components, and anchors.

Instructions

Read a master's glyph metrics in font units, Y upwards. master_id defaults to 'default'. Use detail=full for contour/point/component/anchor IDs and geometry.

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": {
      "project_id": "<project_id>",
      "glyph_id": "<glyph_id>"
    },
    "name": "glyph_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Default
`detail`	No	summary
`glyph_id`	Yes
`revision`	No
`master_id`	No	default
`project_id`	Yes

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`ok`	Yes
`data`	No
`error`	No
`changed`	No
`summary`	Yes
`revision`	No
`warnings`	No
`project_id`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed15 schema fields changedv0.4.3Sep 9, 2026
- addedInput schema / properties / detail
```
Added value: +{
+  "default": "summary",
+  "enum": [
+    "summary",
+    "full"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- removedInput schema / properties / glyph_id / title
```
Removed value: -"Glyph Id"
```
- addedInput schema / properties / master_id
```
Added value: +{
+  "default": "default",
+  "pattern": "^[a-zA-Z0-9_][a-zA-Z0-9_.-]{0,63}$",
+  "type": "string"
+}
```
- removedInput schema / properties / project_id / title
```
Removed value: -"Project Id"
```
- removedInput schema / properties / revision / title
```
Removed value: -"Revision"
```
- removedInput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"GlyphGet"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / changed / title
```
Removed value: -"Changed"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / data / title
```
Removed value: -"Data"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / error / title
```
Removed value: -"Error"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / ok / title
```
Removed value: -"Ok"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / project_id / title
```
Removed value: -"Project Id"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / revision / title
```
Removed value: -"Revision"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / summary / title
```
Removed value: -"Summary"
```
- removedOutput schema / properties / warnings / title
```
Removed value: -"Warnings"
```
- removedOutput schema / title
```
Removed value: -"Result"
```
First observedv0.1.0Sep 8, 2026

TDQS

A4/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond annotations by specifying the coordinate system (Y upwards) and what detail=full reveals (contour/point/component/anchor IDs and geometry). It does not cover pagination or errors, but these are less critical for a simple read operation.

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 concise sentences with no fluff. The primary action is front-loaded, and the detail=full guidance is placed second. Every word serves a purpose.

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 an output schema exists (has output schema: true), the description need not detail return values. It covers the essential purpose, coordinate system, and the main optional parameter behavior. It doesn't mention revision handling or edge cases, but these are secondary for a read-only tool with strong annotations and schema.

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 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds meaning for 'detail' by explaining what detail=full returns and notes that master_id defaults to 'default' (already in schema). However, it does not explain 'revision', 'project_id', or 'glyph_id', which are not self-evident. The partial compensation warrants a 3.

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 a specific action ('Read a master's glyph metrics'), the resource (master's glyph), and adds relevant details (font units, Y upwards). It distinguishes itself from siblings like glyph_edit (write) and render_glyph (rendering) by focusing on reading metrics.

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 gives guidance on parameter usage ('Use detail=full for contour/point/component/anchor IDs and geometry') but does not explicitly address when to use this tool versus alternatives. It lacks 'when not to use' or references to sibling tools like glyph_edit or render_glyph, so an agent must infer the appropriate context.

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