Skip to main content
Glama

scene_open

Destructive

Opens a Daz Studio .duf scene file or merges it into the current scene. Use it to load existing scenes for editing or to add scene content without replacing your work.

Instructions

Opens a Daz scene (.duf), or merges it into the current one.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "scene_open"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pathYesAbsolute path to a .duf scene file.
mergeNoAdd to the current scene instead of replacing it.
discard_changesNoAllow replacing a scene with unsaved changes.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the safety profile is known, but the description adds no behavioral context beyond restating merge behavior from the schema. It never says that the default mode replaces the current scene, that unsaved work is destroyed, or that discard_changes is the gate for that — the most important behavioral fact for a destructive tool.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the primary action and appending the secondary mode. Nothing is padded or repeated.

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?

With a fully documented 3-parameter schema, annotations covering the destructive profile, and no output schema, only modest prose is needed — but the destructive replace-vs-merge consequence and the unsaved-changes failure mode are left unstated. Adequate, with a clear gap around data loss.

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 all three parameters (path, merge, discard_changes) are already documented with defaults and meaning. The description adds nothing beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ("Opens a Daz scene (.duf)") plus the alternate mode ("merges it into the current one"), so the agent knows exactly what the tool does. It does not name the sibling it differs from (e.g. scene_new), so it falls short of the 5 bar of explicit sibling differentiation.

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 is only implied: the sentence suggests it is for loading an existing .duf rather than creating a new scene, but there is no explicit when-to-use/when-not guidance and no routing to scene_new or scene_info. An agent must infer the choice from sibling names alone.

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