Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
TiledMCP

TiledMCP

by PengLx
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Check tile layer connectivity

tiled_check_connectivity
Read-onlyIdempotent

Analyze four-way connectivity on a tile layer: returns component sizes, representative cells, and checks if two positions are connected. Define passability via empty cells or listed tiles.

Instructions

Bounded four-way connectivity analysis over one finite tile layer with explicit passability: either empty cells walk (mode empty-cells) or a listed tile set walks (mode listed-tiles, with includeEmpty opting empty cells in); flip bits never affect matching. Returns passable/blocked counts, connected components ranked by size with one representative cell each, and — when from/to are both given — whether they share a component. Read-only; endpoints on blocked cells fail closed.

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": {
      "mapPath": "<mapPath>",
      "layerId": "<layerId>",
      "passable": "<passable>"
    },
    "name": "tiled_check_connectivity"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
toNo
fromNo
layerIdYes
mapPathYesCanonical project-relative POSIX path; absolute paths and .. are forbidden
passableYes

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.0.1

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate readOnlyHint: true, idempotentHint: true, destructiveHint: false. The description adds behavioral context beyond these: 'endpoints on blocked cells fail closed', 'flip bits never affect matching', and outlines the return values (passable/blocked counts, connected components with representative cells, and connectivity between two points). This provides useful additional insight for the agent.

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, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core function and then details modes and return values. It is concise with no redundant sentences. However, it could benefit from bullet points or clearer separation of concepts for even faster parsing.

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 (5 parameters, nested objects, output schema), the description provides a comprehensive behavioral overview including return values and edge cases (e.g., blocked cells). The existence of an output schema reduces the need to describe return types fully. Minor gaps exist for mapPath and layerId, but overall it is sufficiently complete for agent understanding.

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 20% (low). The description partially compensates by explaining the 'passable' parameter's two modes and the role of 'from'/'to' for connectivity queries. However, it does not describe the 'mapPath' or 'layerId' parameters beyond what the schema provides, leaving some semantic gaps.

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 performs bounded four-way connectivity analysis over a finite tile layer, with explicit passability modes (empty-cells vs listed-tiles). It also lists what it returns (counts, components, connectivity) and distinguishes from sibling tools like tiled_get_region or tiled_find_tiles through its specific focus on connectivity.

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 does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives or when not to use it. While the purpose is clear, there is no guidance on comparison with other tools for pathfinding or region analysis. The usage context is implied by the tool's name and description, but not directly addressed.

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