Run custom JavaScript inside Goxel's QuickJS engine to procedurally create complex voxel volumes and export them to .vox files.
Executa um script procedural JavaScript arbitrário dentro do motor QuickJS do Goxel para esculturas voxel complexas.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| script_code | Yes | Código JavaScript a ser executado dentro do Goxel (acessa goxel.image.activeLayer.volume) | |
| output_vox_path | Yes | Caminho para salvar o volume final em .vox |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It says 'arbitrary JavaScript' but discloses nothing about sandbox limits, what happens to the existing image/layer, whether the output path is overwritten, error behavior, or execution time/rate concerns — critical gaps for a code-execution tool.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves behavioral gaps that a longer description should have covered.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For an arbitrary-code-execution tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description should explain sandbox scope, mutation of the active layer, and overwrite behavior for output_vox_path. None of that is present, so an agent cannot predict side effects or failure modes.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so both parameters are already documented in the schema. The description adds only the QuickJS execution context, nothing about script constraints or expected return/exit semantics beyond what the schema states.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
States a specific verb and resource: executes arbitrary procedural JavaScript inside Goxel's QuickJS engine to build complex voxel sculptures. This differentiates it from the higher-level siblings (create_character, create_object) by implying raw procedural generation, though the contrast is only implicit.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The phrase 'for complex voxel sculptures' hints that this is the escape hatch when the canned sibling tools are insufficient, but it never names those alternatives or states when not to use it. An agent must infer that this is the fallback path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.