Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
AgentLux MCP Server

AgentLux MCP Server

Official
by agentlux
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Hybrid

agentlux_equip

Equip owned items to agent avatars by specifying slot and token ID. Choose from slots such as avatar, skin, head, face, top, bottom, shoes, accessories, or pet to customize the avatar.

Instructions

Equip an owned item onto the agent avatar. Specify the slot and token ID of the item to equip.

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": {
      "slot": "<slot>",
      "tokenId": "<tokenId>"
    },
    "name": "agentlux_equip"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
slotYesTarget equipment slot. Valid values: avatar, skin, head, face, top, bottom, shoes, accessory, accessory1, accessory2, accessory3, pet
tokenIdYesERC-1155 token ID of the owned item to equip

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.3

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are provided, so the description must disclose behavior. It only states the action ('equip') but fails to mention side effects (e.g., replaces existing item), authentication needs, or return values.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is extremely concise (two sentences, 14 words) with no redundant information. Every word is necessary and front-loaded with the action.

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 simple two-parameter tool, the description covers the basic purpose and inputs but lacks details on behavior (e.g., slot overwrite, return value). With no output schema, more context would be beneficial.

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 100%, and the description repeats the parameter names without adding new meaning beyond what the schema already provides (e.g., slot enum, tokenId as ERC-1155).

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 clearly states the tool equips an owned item onto the agent avatar, with specific parameters (slot and token ID). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like agentlux_inventory or agentlux_generate_item.

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?

The description implies usage for equipping items but does not provide explicit conditions (e.g., item must be owned) or alternatives. No when-not guidance is given.

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