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

mcp-for-cascadeur

by Rickcy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

native_mirror

Destructive

Mirrors rig-aware poses and keyframes on specified objects at the current frame or over a selected interval to correct asymmetry in Cascadeur rigs.

Instructions

Invoke native rig-aware mirroring on explicit objects at this frame or selected interval.

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": {
      "objects": "<objects>"
    },
    "name": "native_mirror"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
objectsYes
intervalNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations declare destructiveHint=true, so the agent knows this mutates data, yet the description never says what is overwritten (the mirrored objects' existing pose/keys) or whether the operation is reversible. For a destructive rig operation, this leaves a meaningful gap that the description should close.

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?

A single efficient sentence with the operative constraint front-loaded. It is not padded, though its terseness contributes to the ambiguities noted elsewhere.

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?

A destructive, non-read-only tool with two undocumented parameters and no output schema needs more than one sentence. Missing are what the mirror does, what is destroyed, and what the caller gets back.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning. It clarifies interval as "this frame or selected interval" but says only "explicit objects" for the required objects array, without saying whether these are names, paths, or handles, and the 512-char/128-item limits remain undocumented.

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

Purpose3/5

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

It uses a specific verb ("Invoke") and describes the resource as "native rig-aware mirroring on explicit objects," but "native" and "rig-aware" are internal jargon that don't explain what mirroring actually does to the objects. It also never distinguishes itself from the closely named sibling motion_mirror.

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?

The phrase "at this frame or selected interval" hints at the interval parameter's effect, but there is no guidance on when to choose this tool over motion_mirror, pose_offset, or the pose_apply family. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no mentioned alternatives.

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