Skip to main content
Glama
larpingvibecoder

clo3d-mcp

by larpingvibecoder
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

pattern_ops

Apply pattern operations in CLO3D: rename, move, flip, copy, symmetry, unfold, layer, set particle distance, freeze, hide, strengthen, elastic, shirring, delete lines/points.

Instructions

Piece operations. op: rename{name}, move_2d{x,y|dx,dy}, flip{horizontal,each}, copy{dx,dy}, symmetry{with_sewing}, unfold{line,half_symmetry}, layer{layer}, particle_distance{mm}, freeze{on}, hide{on}, strengthen{on}, elastic{line,on,total_length,strength}, shirring{line,on}, delete_line{line}, delete_point{point}.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
opYes
argsNo
patternYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

B3/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations existфайл; the description carries the full burden. It lists operation names and arguments but never states side effects, whether operations mutate the piece, return values, or prerequisites. For a mutating operation set this is a significant omission.

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?

Terse and front-loaded; the operation list is a compact reference. Slightly dense, but no filler.

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?

There are no annotations and no output schema; side effects, prerequisites, value ranges, and result behavior for the many operations are unexplained. Ambiguous arguments like 'flip{horizontal,each}' and move_2d coordinate semantics leave the agent guessing, so important invocation context is missing.

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?

The schema has no descriptions, so the inline op signatures add real meaning (accepted op names and their arguments), which is essential. However several argument meanings remain ambiguous (e.g., 'flip{horizontal,each}', 'move_2d{x,y|dx,dy}' distinctions, 'strengthen{on}'), and the 'pattern' parameter is not explained.

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 clear resource ('Piece') and enumerates specific operation verbs (rename, move_2d, flip, copy, etc.). It doesn't explicitly contrast with pattern_edit_points, but the operation list makes the tool's scope reasonably recognizable.

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 guidance about when to use this tool instead of pattern_edit_points, pattern_create, or other siblings. The operation list implies coverage, but no prerequisites, exclusions, or selection hints are provided.

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