Skip to main content
Glama

define_stick_rig

Defines custom stick-figure rigs by mapping bones, joints, IK targets, and interpolation properties for animation.

Instructions

Defines a custom stick figure rig/skeleton configuration mapping bones, segments, fixed-length joints, and interpolation properties (like Inverse Kinematics targets).

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": {
      "name": "<name>",
      "nodes": "<nodes>"
    },
    "name": "define_stick_rig"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesName of the stick figure rig (e.g. "StickNinja")
nodesYesArray of joint/bone definitions forming the skeleton hierarchy
rootXNoInitial root coordinate X (default: center of canvas)
rootYNoInitial root coordinate Y (default: center of canvas)
scaleNoScale factor (default: 1.0)
addToProjectNoWhether to add figure to active document (default: true)
figureTypeIdNoExplicit figure_type_id (auto-generated if omitted)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.1

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It says the tool defines a configuration, but does not disclose whether this mutates the active document, saves a reusable rig, requires a project, overwrites existing rigs, or what happens when addToProject is true. The mention of IK targets is useful context but does not cover side effects or prerequisites.

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 a single front-loaded sentence with no obvious filler. It is appropriately concise for a definition tool, though the dense jargon around fixed-length joints and interpolation properties could be clearer.

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?

This is a complex tool with nested node definitions, optional IK and constraint structures, and document-mutating behavior implied by addToProject. With no annotations and no output schema, the one-sentence description is not complete enough to explain the rig hierarchy, root joint semantics, or persistence behavior. The schema is rich, but the description should do more for a tool of this complexity.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents parameters such as name, nodes, root coordinates, scale, addToProject, and figureTypeId. The description adds conceptual framing around bones, segments, fixed-length joints, and IK targets, but it does not add parameter-specific syntax or relationships beyond the schema. A baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 states a specific verb and resource: defining a custom stick figure rig/skeleton configuration. It mentions the kinds of mappings involved, including bones, segments, fixed-length joints, and IK properties, so the agent can understand the basic output. It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from siblings such as add_figure_instance or import_legacy_asset.

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?

The description gives no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and names no alternatives. An agent can infer that this is for creating custom rigs, but it is not told how this differs from adding a figure instance, importing a legacy asset, or creating an animation project.

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