Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
evanatpizzarobot

vr-org-mcp

by evanatpizzarobot
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Remote

Explain a VR / AR / XR topic

vr_explain
Read-only

Get a canonical VR.org answer and authoritative guide link for common VR, AR, or XR questions, including buying guides and product hubs.

Instructions

Returns a canonical VR.org answer and the authoritative guide link for a common VR / AR / XR question, covering the main buying guides and product hubs (for example 'what is vr', 'best headset', 'steam frame price', 'meta vr glasses', 'ar glasses', 'vr for beginners').

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicYesThe topic or question, e.g. 'what is vr' or 'steam frame price'.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changedv0.5.0
    • changedInput schema / $schema
      Previous value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"New value: +"https://json-schema.org/draft/2020-12/schema"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • changedInput schema / properties / topic / description
      Previous value: -"The topic or question, e.g. 'what is vr' or 'best vr headset'."New value: +"The topic or question, e.g. 'what is vr' or 'steam frame price'."
  2. Changed1 schema field changedv0.1.3
    • addedInput schema / properties / topic / maxLength
      Added value: +500
  3. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false) and open-world scope, so the bar is lower. The description adds meaningful context beyond them: the answer is canonical/curated (not a live web lookup), and it is paired with an authoritative guide link covering buying guides and product hubs. It does not disclose failure behavior for unrecognized topics.

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?

A single front-loaded sentence that leads with what is returned, then scopes the covered topics. The example list is long but each item clarifies the accepted input domain, so nothing is wasted.

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

Completeness4/5

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

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return, and it does so ('canonical VR.org answer and the authoritative guide link'). For a single-required-parameter tool this is largely sufficient; the only gap is what happens when a topic falls outside the guide/hub set.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description goes further by enumerating representative topic strings ('best headset', 'meta vr glasses', 'ar glasses', 'vr for beginners') that widen the agent's sense of accepted input beyond the two examples in the schema. That materially reduces the risk of mis-typed queries.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: it returns a canonical answer plus an authoritative guide link for VR/AR/XR questions. This is clearly distinct from retrieval-style siblings like get_vr_article or search_vr_news. It stops short of naming any sibling directly, so it doesn't earn the explicit differentiation a 5 requires.

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

Usage Guidelines3/5

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

Usage is implied rather than stated: the tool is for 'a common VR / AR / XR question' and the examples show the intended scope. There is no explicit when-not guidance (e.g., 'for news use search_vr_news', 'for head-to-head specs use compare_vr_headsets'), leaving the agent to infer boundaries from the example list.

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

Deploy Server

Other Tools