Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
fgui-agent-bridge

fgui-agent-bridge

by Wilson520403
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
JavaScript
Local

fgui_analyze_atlas_fit

Checks whether each image fits atlas packing constraints and reports blocking limits plus disagreements with legacy rules, so you can decide whether to switch packing behavior.

Instructions

按图集打包器的真实约束（PackSettings / 全局 AtlasSetting）判断每张图能否入图集。

只读，不改任何资源。返回每张图的 fit（fits / exceeds / unknown）、卡住它的约束 （maxWidth / maxHeight / squareSide）以及与旧的大图硬编码规则的差异统计 （disagreements）——发布时仍按旧规则标记 folderAtlas=alone，本工具只暴露差异， 供决定是否切换。

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": "fgui_analyze_atlas_fit"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
package_nameNo

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Addedv0.8.25

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no annotations supplied, the description carries the full burden, and it does state that the tool is read-only and modifies no resources. It also discloses the returned tri-state fit values, which constraint caused the block, and the disagreement statistics, and it notes that publish behavior is unchanged. Pagination, cost, and permission requirements are not covered, which keeps it below 5.

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?

The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then the read-only guarantee, then the return contents, and it reads as a tight progression. A few clauses, such as the restated publish-time behavior, are slightly redundant, but nothing is padding.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a single-parameter read-only analysis with an output schema, so most of the return-value burden is already covered structurally. The description adds the fit semantics and the legacy-rule caveat that the schema cannot convey. The only material gap is the unspecified package_name scoping.

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?

There is exactly one parameter, package_name, and the schema has 0% description coverage, so it is undocumented everywhere. The description never mentions the parameter or says what omitting it (null default) does — for example, whether all packages are analyzed. The name is suggestive, but the agent is left to infer scope.

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

Purpose5/5

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

The description names a specific action (judging whether each image fits an atlas) and the domain resource (PackSettings / global AtlasSetting), and it clearly separates this diagnostic from the publish path by noting that publishing still uses the old folderAtlas=alone rule. No sibling tool covers atlas-fit analysis, so the purpose is unambiguous.

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?

It gives the context for use: read-only analysis that exposes disagreements with the legacy hard-coded rule, explicitly framed as input to a decision about whether to switch. It does not name an alternative tool or state when not to use it, but no sibling tool performs comparable work, so that omission is small.

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