Skip to main content
Glama

terrain

Generate a noise-based ground mesh for outdoor levels, with seed, size, resolution, height, hills, terraces, island falloff, and optional skirt.

Instructions

Make a ground mesh from a noise height map, for outdoor levels. Same seed, same ground. size is [width along X, depth along Y] and resolution the grid step, in metres (0.5 looks low-poly). Over 160000 vertices is an error: raise resolution. height is the full range above the z of the object. scale is the size of the biggest hills in metres; octaves adds finer bumps. at is the world position of the centre and the origin. edge_falloff 0-1 makes an island: the share of the half size at the border where the ground sinks to zero. flat_center is the radius of a level circle in the middle (for a building); it blends out over half that radius. plateau_levels (2 or more) makes terraces of equal height. The bottom is open. skirt (a world z below the lowest border point) adds walls down to that z and a flat bottom: a closed block. Faces are flat shaded unless smooth=true. Returns the vertex count and height range. Then use path_carve for roads and scatter for rocks and trees.

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
atNo
nameYes
seedNo
sizeNo
scaleNo
skirtNo
heightNo
smoothNo
octavesNo
resolutionNo
flat_centerNo
edge_falloffNo
plateau_levelsNo

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.4.0

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: a hard vertex limit (160000 is an error, raise resolution), that the bottom is open unless skirt is set (which yields a closed block), flat shading as default, determinism from seed, and the returned values. Annotations only say non-readonly/non-destructive, so the description carries real extra weight.

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?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then dense telegraphic lines each documenting a parameter or a behavioral constraint. No filler sentences or repetition of the schema.

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?

For a 13-parameter mesh generator with no output schema and only generic annotations, the description covers geometry constraints, error limits, defaults, and the return payload (vertex count and height range), plus next-step tools. Nothing essential to correct invocation is missing.

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 description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it defines size, resolution, height, scale, octaves, at, edge_falloff, flat_center, plateau_levels, skirt, and smooth with units and semantics (metres, fraction of half-size, equal-height terraces). Only 'name' is left implicit, which is self-evident.

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?

States a specific verb+resource ('Make a ground mesh from a noise height map') plus the target context ('for outdoor levels'), and routes to sibling follow-ups (path_carve, scatter). An agent can distinguish this from ground, rock, or scatter without opening a schema.

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?

Gives clear context ('for outdoor levels') and names the follow-on tools path_carve and scatter for roads/vegetation. However it never states when NOT to use it or how it differs from the sibling 'ground' tool, so the alternative-selection guidance is incomplete.

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