Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
wardogs-mcp

wardogs-mcp

by MudcrabWarrior
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

plan_pieces

Retrieve base layout pieces with their key, position, and yaw. Filter by part ID or label substring to locate specific elements in your wardogs.zone plan.

Instructions

List pieces with key, position and yaw. Optional filter by id or label substring.

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": "plan_pieces"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
filterNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.3

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It does communicate that this is a read-only listing operation and specifies returned fields, but it omits details like pagination, ordering, case sensitivity, or what 'pieces' refers to in the broader plan context. Some meaningful behavior is disclosed, but significant details are missing.

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 short, purposeful sentences. The main purpose is front-loaded, and the optional filter behavior is stated immediately after, with no filler or redundancy.

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 list operation with one optional string parameter and no output schema, the description is mostly sufficient. It covers the returned fields and filtering semantics. However, it does not explicitly state what 'pieces' are or whether the listing is scoped to the current plan, which an agent may need to infer from the tool name and siblings.

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 input schema provides only a bare 'filter' string with 0% description coverage. The tool description compensates by explaining that the filter performs substring matching on id or label, which gives the agent the essential semantic meaning needed to invoke it correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('List'), a clear resource ('pieces'), and the exact fields returned ('key, position and yaw'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings like plan_list and list_buildables by focusing on pieces rather than plans or buildables.

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 implies usage: call this tool to list pieces, optionally filtered by id or label substring. However, it does not explicitly mention when to choose this over alternatives, nor does it state exclusions or prerequisites. Guidance is adequate but mostly implied.

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