Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Daz3D-MCP

Daz3D-MCP

by MictlanLabs
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

daz_guide

Read-onlyIdempotent

Returns Daz3D-MCP usage guides for clients lacking skills support; specify a topic to view instructions or omit it to list available guides.

Instructions

Returns a usage guide (the same text as the Daz3D-MCP skills) for clients without skills support.

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": "daz_guide"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNoGuide name, e.g. daz-basics. Omit to list guides.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool as read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds useful context that the guide text is the same as the Daz3D-MCP skills, but it does not describe return shape, error behavior, or topic-selection behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 definition is a single, front-loaded sentence with no redundant or filler text. It conveys the core purpose and audience efficiently.

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?

For a simple, optional-parameter guide-fetching tool with an output schema and rich annotations, the description is largely complete. The main remaining gap is that it does not explain how this tool relates to other available tools, but the structured fields cover the technical details.

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%, including the meaning of the optional topic parameter and the behavior when it is omitted. The description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema carries the full burden appropriately.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description states a specific verb and resource: it returns a usage guide. It also clarifies the audience with 'for clients without skills support,' which helps distinguish it from general tooling. It does not name a sibling alternative, but the purpose is still clear.

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 phrase 'for clients without skills support' gives a clear audience condition for when to use the tool. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but the intended context is stated directly.

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