Skip to main content
Glama

stage_bind_physics

Bind a scene object to a physics body to let physics simulation drive the object's animation. Create the physics body first, then bind the matching scene object.

Instructions

Bind a scene object to a physics body.

Links a visual object to a physics simulation body so that
the physics simulation drives the object's animation.

Args:
    scene_id: Scene identifier
    object_id: Scene object ID
    physics_body_id: Physics body ID from chuk-mcp-physics
        Format: "rapier://sim-{sim_id}/body-{body_id}"
        Example: "rapier://sim-abc123/body-ball"

Returns:
    BindPhysicsResponse confirmation

Tips for LLMs:
    - Create physics body first using chuk-mcp-physics
    - Then create matching scene object with same shape/size
    - Bind them together so physics drives visuals
    - Use stage_bake_simulation to convert physics → keyframes

Example:
    # 1. Create physics simulation (chuk-mcp-physics)
    sim = await create_simulation(gravity_y=-9.81)

    # 2. Add physics body
    await add_rigid_body(
        sim_id=sim.sim_id,
        body_id="ball",
        body_type="dynamic",
        shape="sphere",
        radius=1.0,
        position=[0, 5, 0]
    )

    # 3. Create scene object
    await stage_add_object(
        scene_id=scene_id,
        object_id="ball",
        object_type="sphere",
        radius=1.0,
        position_y=5.0
    )

    # 4. Bind them
    await stage_bind_physics(
        scene_id=scene_id,
        object_id="ball",
        physics_body_id=f"rapier://{sim.sim_id}/body-ball"
    )

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
scene_idYes
object_idYes
physics_body_idYes
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations provided, the description bears full responsibility for behavioral traits. It explains that physics drives the object's animation but does not disclose whether binding is reversible, what happens to existing bindings, or any authentication/rate-limit info. The basic linking behavior is transparent, but deeper effects are omitted.

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?

The description is well-structured with clear headings (Args, Returns, Tips, Example) and front-loaded purpose. The example is detailed but adds value; slight verbosity prevents a 5.

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?

Given no output schema, the description mentions a 'BindPhysicsResponse confirmation' but does not detail the response fields. It also lacks info on reversibility or error conditions. The tips provide good workflow context, but completeness is slightly lacking for a binding operation.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema description coverage is 0%, but the description compensates with an 'Args' section explaining each parameter: scene_id, object_id, physics_body_id (with format and example). This adds meaning beyond the raw schema, though the return value is only vaguely mentioned.

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 clearly states it binds a scene object to a physics body, with the purpose being that the physics simulation drives the object's animation. This is specific and distinguishes it from sibling tools like stage_add_object (creates objects) and stage_bake_simulation (converts physics to keyframes).

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?

The description provides a 'Tips for LLMs' section that outlines the correct workflow: create physics body first, then create matching scene object, then bind. It also suggests using stage_bake_simulation to convert physics to keyframes. This gives clear guidance on the sequence and context, though it does not explicitly state when not to use the tool.

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

Install Server

Other Tools

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/chrishayuk/chuk-mcp-stage'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server