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

mcp-for-cascadeur

by Rickcy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

object_hierarchy

Read-only

Read Cascadeur object parent links by exact native ID, with a query filter and bounded output limit, to inspect rig hierarchy structure without loading full scene data.

Instructions

Read Basic parent links by exact native IDs, with a bounded output.

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "object_hierarchy"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNo
queryNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

C2.7/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false, so safety is fully covered without the description. The description contributes only 'bounded output', which is not actionable: it never states the default limit, what happens when results exceed the bound, or how truncation would be surfaced.

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 short sentence with the resource and the output constraint front-loaded; nothing is padded or redundant. Brevity here comes at the cost of coverage rather than from trimming filler.

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?

For a hierarchy-reading tool with no output schema, the description says nothing about the shape of a returned link, traversal depth, ordering, or how cycles/roots appear. An agent cannot predict the response well enough to chain it confidently with objects_list or object_inspect.

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 bears the full burden for both parameters. It does imply that the query is an exact native ID rather than a name search, which is useful, but it never says whether that means one ID or many, what an ID looks like, or what the bounded/default behaviour of limit is.

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?

"Read Basic parent links by exact native IDs" names a specific verb and resource, and 'parent links' is distinguishable from siblings like objects_list or object_inspect. However, 'Basic' is unexplained jargon and no sibling is named, so differentiation still requires inference.

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 when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. With dozens of overlapping read tools available (objects_list, object_inspect, subtree_pose_read, api_inspect), the description gives the agent nothing about which one answers a hierarchy question and which does not.

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