Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Markdown3D MCP Server

Markdown3D MCP Server

by MushroomFleet
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

get_chunk_status

Retrieve the processing status of chunked 3D output by providing the path to its manifest.json file.

Instructions

Check status of chunked output

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": {
      "manifestPath": "<manifestPath>"
    },
    "name": "get_chunk_status"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
manifestPathYesPath to manifest.json

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

C2.1/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

With no annotations, the description fails to disclose any behavioral traits, such as whether the operation is read-only, has side effects, or requires specific permissions. The single sentence provides no insight into tool behavior beyond the implied status check.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (one sentence), which is efficient but insufficient for a tool with no annotations or output schema. It sacrifices necessary detail for brevity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's single parameter and lack of output schema, the description should explain what status information is returned, possible values, or how to interpret results. It provides none of this, leaving the agent underinformed.

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?

The schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'manifestPath', so the baseline is 3. The description adds no extra meaning beyond the schema's own description, but does not detract either.

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

Purpose2/5

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

The description 'Check status of chunked output' merely rephrases the tool name without providing additional context or distinguishing it from siblings like 'assemble_chunks'. It lacks specificity about what 'status' entails.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines1/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus alternatives. There is no mention of prerequisites, context, or exclusions, making it impossible for an agent to determine appropriate usage.

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