Skip to main content
Glama

Create asemic writing

create_asemic_writing

Generate a page of procedural asemic writing with random glyph strokes that mimic real handwriting but convey no meaning. Customize rows, glyphs, slant, jitter, and stroke thickness for unique calligraphic line art.

Instructions

Generate a page of procedural asemic writing — random-but-writing-like glyph strokes that flow left-to-right along stacked baselines but spell nothing. A Script SOP lays out rows × glyphs cells; each glyph is a short chain of strokes control points walking a noise-perturbed pen, with italic slant, per-stroke jitter, and occasional pen-lifts (lift_chance) that break marks apart. The polylines are thickened into tube ink strokes and rendered with an orthographic camera as calligraphic line art on a coloured page. Deterministic per seed. Genuinely distinct from create_growth_system (L-system branches) and create_vector_lines (image-traced contours). Creates a new baseCOMP under parent_path. Exposes Jitter, Slant, Thickness, and Seed controls. Returns a summary plus a JSON block with the container path, created node paths, output path, exposed controls, node errors, warnings, and an inline preview image.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
rowsNoNumber of baselines (lines of writing) stacked top to bottom.
seedNoRNG seed — same seed reproduces the same page of writing.
slantNoItalic slant applied to every glyph (x-shear per unit height). 0 = upright.
glyphsNoGlyphs per row, laid left to right along the baseline.
jitterNoHow far the pen wanders vertically per stroke (fraction of the line height). 0 = flat dashes, 1 = wild scrawl.
strokesNoControl points per glyph — more strokes = more elaborate, script-like marks.
ink_colorNoStroke (ink) colour (RGB 0..1).
thicknessNoTube SOP radius for the rendered ink strokes.
backgroundNoPage / background colour (RGB 0..1).
lift_chanceNoProbability the pen lifts (breaks the polyline) between adjacent strokes, giving disconnected marks.
parent_pathNoParent network where the asemic-writing container is created (default '/project1')./project1
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses the creation of a new baseCOMP, deterministic behavior per seed, the process of generating glyphs, and the return format. While it adds value beyond annotations (which indicate a non-read-only, non-destructive, open-world tool), it does not mention potential side effects or permissions.

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

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is a single paragraph but is well-structured: it starts with the tool's purpose, explains the process, differentiates from siblings, and ends with output details. It is slightly verbose but conveys all necessary information 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?

Given the tool's complexity (11 parameters, creates geometry), the description covers the creation process, output format, and sibling differentiation. It is mostly complete, though it could mention error handling or prerequisites for a perfect score.

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?

All 11 parameters have descriptions in the schema (100% coverage), so the description only adds marginal context (e.g., listing exposed controls). Baseline score of 3 is appropriate as the description does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 the tool generates 'a page of procedural asemic writing' with random glyph strokes, and explicitly distinguishes it from two sibling tools (create_growth_system and create_vector_lines).

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 description provides clear context for when to use this tool (generating asemic writing) and distinguishes it from two similar tools, but does not explicitly state when not to use it or list alternative tools beyond the two mentioned.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Pantani/tdmcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server