Skip to main content
Glama

scene_order

Idempotent

Reorder PyMOL scenes by specifying space-separated scene names in the desired display sequence.

Instructions

Sets the order of scenes

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": {
      "scene_list": "<scene_list>"
    },
    "name": "scene_order"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scene_listYesSpace-separated scene names in the order wanted, e.g. "F2 F1 F3".

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changedv1.5.1
    • addedInput schema / properties / scene_list / description
      Added value: +"Space-separated scene names in the order wanted, e.g. \"F2 F1 F3\"."
  2. First observedv1.2.1

TDQS

C2.8/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds nothing beyond that: it does not say whether scenes omitted from the list are deleted or merely reordered, whether unknown names cause an error, or what persistence the order has.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

A single sentence with no wasted words, so nothing is padded. Its brevity is not, however, a virtue here because substantive information (scope, side effects) is simply absent rather than distilled.

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

Completeness2/5

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

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, but this is a state-mutating reorder operation with no annotations covering its scope of effect. The description leaves the critical question unanswered: whether the supplied list must include all existing scenes and what happens to any left out.

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 schema itself explains the format with a concrete example ('F2 F1 F3'), so the parameter is fully documented structurally. The description adds no meaning beyond that, which is the baseline case for full schema coverage.

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

Purpose4/5

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

The description names a specific verb and resource ('Sets the order of scenes'), making the operation understandable at a glance. It does not, however, distinguish this from the sibling 'scene' tool, which also manages scenes, so an agent must infer the division of labor.

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?

There is no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of the 'scene' sibling or any prerequisite (e.g., that scenes must already exist). The agent gets no routing help toward or away from this tool.

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