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

mcp-for-cascadeur

by Rickcy
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

selection_get

Read-only

Retrieve the IDs and available names of currently selected native Cascadeur objects to inspect or target them in rig-editing workflows.

Instructions

Read selected native object IDs and available names.

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": "selection_get"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.2.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=false, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds a small amount of context by saying it reads "native object IDs" and "available names," hinting that names may be absent for some objects, but it says nothing about empty-selection behavior or return shape.

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 or redundancy. It is perhaps overly terse for a tool whose only value is the shape of what it returns, but no sentence wastes space.

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 zero parameters and no output schema, the description is the only place an agent can learn what comes back, and it gives just one clause (IDs plus available names). Missing are the empty-selection case and whether names can be null, which matter for a selection-read tool with no structured return documentation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4; there is no parameter semantics burden to carry. The description introduces no confusion about inputs and correctly implies the tool acts on ambient editor state rather than arguments.

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?

Specific verb ("Read") plus a specific resource (selected native object IDs and their available names). It is clear what the tool returns, but it never distinguishes itself from the sibling selection_set or from objects_list, which an agent could easily confuse it with.

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?

Usage is only implied: the word "selected" signals this reads the current selection rather than an arbitrary object set. There is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over objects_list, object_inspect, or selection_set, and no mention of what happens when the selection is empty.

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