Skip to main content
Glama

place_at_pixel

Move a 3D object so a chosen point of its bounding box lands where a photo pixel points, aligning models to match a camera view.

Instructions

Move an object so that a point of its box lands where a picture pixel points. anchor is the point of the box of the object with its children as fractions (0.5, 0.5, 0 is the middle of the bottom). pixel is [x, y] in a picture of image_size [width, height], y down. With plane_z the ray from camera hits that horizontal plane. Without it the ray stops on the first surface of the scene (the object itself is ignored) and, if there is none, on the plane at the bottom height of the object. It only moves: size and rotation stay. Returns the description of the object and what it was placed on. Use it to put parts where the photo shows them, after match_camera. Without a photo use attach, move_to_contact or place_on.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
pixelYes
anchorNo
cameraYes
objectYes
plane_zNo
image_sizeYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so well. It explains the raycast behavior with and without plane_z, states that only position changes while size and rotation stay, and describes what the tool returns.

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 front-loaded with the core action and stays dense with useful detail. Despite its length, every sentence contributes to understanding how to call the tool correctly.

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

Completeness5/5

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

Given six parameters, no schema descriptions, no annotations, and no output schema, the description provides complete-enough context. It covers parameter semantics, placement behavior, constraints, alternatives, and the return value.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 0%, so the description must define parameter meaning. It explains anchor fractions and the default, pixel coordinates, image_size dimensions, plane_z behavior, camera involvement, and the object being moved.

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 states a specific verb and resource: move an object so a point of its box lands where a picture pixel points. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by naming attach, move_to_contact, and place_on as alternatives when no photo is involved.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says to use this tool to put parts where the photo shows them, after match_camera. It also states when not to use it and names three alternative tools for the no-photo case.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.