Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
mcp-for-cascadeur

mcp-for-cascadeur

by Rickcy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

motion_mirror

Read-only

Reflects pose position and rotation data across an axis plane with optional object-ID mapping, returning a plan without altering the native scene.

Instructions

Reflect pose position/rotation data across an axis plane with optional exact object-ID mapping. Returns a plan without changing the native scene.

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": {
      "keyframes": "<keyframes>"
    },
    "name": "motion_mirror"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
axisNo
keyframesYes
object_mapNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

B3.3/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the non-mutating safety profile is covered. The description adds the useful concept that output is a 'plan' rather than applied changes, but does not say what a plan contains or how it would be consumed.

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 sentences, front-loaded with the operation and axis, followed by the return-value caveat. No filler and nothing repeated from the schema.

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 no output schema, the description should say more about the returned plan's shape and how it is used, and it should distinguish this tool from native_mirror. For a nested three-parameter operation these omissions leave the definition only minimally sufficient.

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 0% and the schema is deeply nested, so the description must carry weight. It explains the axis plane and clarifies that object_map is an optional exact object-ID mapping, which the schema leaves completely opaque, but it says nothing about keyframes structure or the default when the non-required axis parameter is omitted.

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: 'Reflect pose position/rotation data across an axis plane', plus an optional object-ID mapping. An agent can tell what operation happens, but nothing distinguishes this from the sibling 'native_mirror', which reads as the same operation.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

There is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no exclusion of alternatives. The presence of a near-identical sibling 'native_mirror' makes this a real gap, since the description gives no basis for choosing between them.

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