Skip to main content
Glama

reset

DestructiveIdempotent

Restores the camera to its default view and optionally clears a selected object's transformation matrix in PyMOL.

Instructions

Resets the view, optionally resetting an object's matrix

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": "reset"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
objNoObject whose matrix to reset. Omit to reset only the camera.

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / obj / description
      Added value: +"Object whose matrix to reset. Omit to reset only the camera."
  2. First observedv1.2.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare destructiveHint=true and idempotentHint=true, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description partially explains the destructiveness by saying an object's matrix is overwritten, but it never states that the prior camera/transform state is unrecoverable or what "reset" actually restores to, which is the key ambiguity for a destructive operation.

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?

A single compact sentence with zero filler; the optional-parameter case is folded in cleanly. Brevity is appropriate, though it shades into under-specification given the vague target of "the view."

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?

With an output schema and annotations present, the description needn't cover returns or safety. It remains thin on the central question of what state "reset" restores and whether object matrix resets affect other views, but it is adequate for a single-optional-parameter tool.

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 obj parameter already explains "Omit to reset only the camera." The description's "optionally resetting an object's matrix" restates the same semantics without adding format, type, or edge-case detail, so baseline 3 applies.

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

Purpose3/5

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

"Resets the view, optionally resetting an object's matrix" gives a verb and two targets, so the action is recognizable, but "reset the view" is not pinned down (camera position? orientation? clipping?) and nothing distinguishes it from siblings like orient, zoom, or center that also change the camera.

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

Usage Guidelines2/5

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

No when-to-use context and no alternatives are named. An agent gets no guidance on when reset is preferable to orient/zoom/center, or when passing obj makes sense versus performing a separate transform.

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