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

mcp-for-cascadeur

by Rickcy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

scene_activate

Destructive

Activates a Cascadeur scene using a fresh index from the scene list, enabling you to switch the active scene for inspection or editing.

Instructions

Activate a scene using a fresh index from scene_list.

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": {
      "index": "<index>"
    },
    "name": "scene_activate"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
indexYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=true, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The only added behavioral detail is that the index must be 'fresh', which hints at stale-index failure modes, but the description never says what activation discards (e.g., unsaved scene state) or what happens when a stale index is passed.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. Its brevity is efficient, though it leaves important consequences unaddressed – an under-specification problem rather than a wording problem.

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?

For a destructive, single-parameter scene switch with no output schema, the definition covers invocation but not consequences. An agent knows how to obtain the index but not what it risks losing, which is the main thing that should gate this call.

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 coverage is 0%, so the schema says only that index is a non-negative integer. The description usefully adds the index's provenance (scene_list) and a currency requirement, but it leaves base offset (0- vs 1-based), staleness detection, and error behavior unspecified.

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 ('Activate a scene') and identifies the index source as scene_list, which lets an agent place it in the list/activate workflow. It does not distinguish itself from the plausible alternative scene_open, so the reader must infer whether 'activate' differs from 'open'.

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 phrase 'using a fresh index from scene_list' prescribes a concrete prerequisite workflow: call scene_list first and do not reuse a stale index. What remains unstated is when to choose this over scene_open or scene_new.

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