Cocos Asset Forge MCP

by lightblink

Overview Schema Related Servers Score Discussions

TypeScript

Local

Server Quality Checklist

Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

Latest release: v0.1.0
Disambiguation5/5
Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: adapting existing assets, generating new ones, planning, or configuration. No overlap in functionality.
Naming Consistency5/5
All tools use a consistent 'asset_forge_verb_noun' pattern in snake_case, with clear and predictable naming conventions.
Tool Count5/5
11 tools provide comprehensive coverage for asset generation without being excessive. The number is well-scoped for a content creation server.
Completeness4/5
Covers adaptation and generation of audio, images, sprites, tiles, UI packs, plus config and planning. Minor gaps like 3D or text assets, but core workflows are complete.
Average 3/5 across 11 of 11 tools scored.
See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.
- 0 of 1 community issues answered or closed in the last 6 months
- 15 commits in the last 12 weeks
- No stable releases found
- No critical vulnerability alerts
- No high-severity vulnerability alerts
- No code scanning findings
- CI status not available
This repository is licensed under MIT License.
This repository includes a README.md file.
No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.
Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.
Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.
If you are the author, simply .
If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:
```
{
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}
```
Then . Browse examples.
Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It mentions actions like 'clean alpha' and 'pack metadata' but does not disclose side effects, file creation details, or whether the tool modifies existing files. The behavioral impact is under-described.
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?
The description is a single sentence that packs multiple processing steps, making it slightly run-on. It is adequately sized but could be more front-loaded and concise. Every part earns its place, but structure could be improved.
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?
With 17 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the output format, required parameter roles (beyond prompt/name), or describe defaults like frameSize, postprocess, etc. The tool's complexity demands more context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 41%, meaning most parameters lack descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-specific information beyond mentioning '3x3 or 4x3' (related to rows/columns). It does not compensate for the low 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 specifies generating an AI contact sheet for character consistency, slicing into frames, cleaning alpha, and packing Cocos-ready metadata. This clearly identifies the tool's purpose, but it does not distinguish from sibling 'asset_forge_generate_sprite_sheet', which may cause confusion.
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?
No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'asset_forge_generate_sprite_sheet' or 'asset_forge_generate_sprite'. The description implies use for multi-frame character consistency but offers no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description fully shoulders behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'seamless-ish' (non-committal quality) but omits side effects (e.g., file creation, potential overwrites), output specifics, or required permissions. A mutation tool like this needs more transparency.
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?
The single sentence is concise (16 words) and front-loaded with verbs, but it omits essential details. Conciseness here comes at the cost of completeness, earning a middle score.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness1/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is far too sparse. It does not explain tile metadata format, parameter roles, or output behavior, making it inadequate for correct usage.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 33% (3 of 9 parameters documented), and the tool description adds zero parameter information. It fails to compensate for the low coverage, leaving agents uninformed about key parameters like seed, tileCount, or postprocess.
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 the action (generate, pack, emit), the resource (tile sprites, tileset sheet, tile metadata), and distinguishes from sibling tools like generate_sprite (single sprite) and generate_sprite_sheet (arbitrary sprites) by specifying 'seamless-ish' tiles and packing into a tileset.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives, no prerequisites or contraindications mentioned. The description is purely functional without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description must disclose behaviors but only states the output type. It does not mention file creation, side effects, or what 'Cocos-ready' entails.
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?
Single sentence is concise but under-informative for a tool with 8 parameters. Structure is front-loaded but lacks necessary detail.
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?
Given 8 parameters, no annotations, no output schema, and sibling tools, the description is too brief. It does not explain output format, usage flow, or how this tool differs from similar ones.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 38% (low), and the description adds no parameter information. It does not explain what prompt, style, or elements mean, leaving the agent without guidance.
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 clearly states it generates Cocos-ready UI element sprites and lists examples (buttons, panels, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that generate single sprites or sheets.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like generate_sprite or generate_sprite_sheet. The description lacks explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It only describes high-level functionality (frames, packing, metadata) but omits critical behavioral details like file output, overwrite behavior, authentication needs, rate limits, or side effects. For a tool with 15 parameters and nested objects, this is insufficient.
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?
The description is a single sentence, making it concise but overly brief for a tool with 15 parameters and complex nested objects. It front-loads the main action but lacks structure or additional detail that would fit in a few more sentences.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description should explain the return value (files, metadata). It does not. It also omits any mention of file generation, output directory implications, or the complexity of the generation process. The description is incomplete for the tool's actual complexity.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 47%, leaving 8 parameters undocumented. The description adds zero parameter-level context beyond what the schema provides. It does not explain how parameters like style, action, frameCount, or postprocess affect the output.
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 generates an animation as frames, packs into a PNG sprite sheet, and emits Cocos/TexturePacker metadata. This specific verb-resource combination distinguishes it from sibling tools like asset_forge_generate_sprite (single sprite) and asset_forge_generate_sprite_grid_sheet (grid sheet).
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool vs alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or explicitly differentiate from similar tools like sprite grid sheet or tileset generation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full burden for behavioral disclosure, but it only states the conversion outcome. It omits critical details like required input formats, side effects on original files, permissions, or error behavior. The underlying processing parameters (postprocess) are not hinted at.
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 extremely concise at 12 words. However, for a tool with 4 parameters including a nested object, it may be too brief to be useful. It earns points for brevity but loses some for under-specification.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (4 params, nested postprocess object, no output schema), the description is incomplete. It fails to explain return values, error conditions, or the specifics of the conversion process. A more detailed description is needed.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 50%, so the description should compensate, but it adds no parameter-specific information. It does not explain how the parameters (e.g., postprocess options) relate to the conversion. The mention of 'transparent PNG' hints at some meaning but is insufficient.
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 the tool converts an existing image into a Cocos-ready transparent PNG, specifying the verb (convert), resource (existing image), and target format. This distinguishes it from sibling generation tools like asset_forge_generate_sprite.
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 provides no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention prerequisites, exclusions, or when not to use it. Users must infer from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It fails to mention potential side effects (e.g., file creation, overwriting), permissions needed, rate limits, or any constraints beyond the basic functionality.
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?
The description is a single sentence, which is concise, but it lacks structure and omits important context. While brevity is valued, here it sacrifices informativeness.
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?
Given the complexity (7 parameters, nested objects, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not describe return values, file paths, or typical usage scenarios, making it inadequate for confident tool selection.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 43%, and the description adds no parameter details. The one-sentence overview does not explain the role of key parameters like 'seed', 'style', or the nested 'postprocess' object.
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 the tool's action ('generate background music and transcode it into a Cocos-ready looping AudioClip file'), specifying the resource and output format. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like asset_forge_generate_sfx (sound effects) and asset_forge_adapt_audio (adapting existing audio).
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?
No guidelines are provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives. The description does not mention prerequisites, context, or exclusion cases (e.g., for sound effects, use the SFX tool instead).
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description must carry the burden of behavioral disclosure. It only says 'Create' and implies a plan is produced, but it does not specify side effects, permissions, or the nature of the output. Without an output schema, the agent remains uncertain about the tool's behavior beyond the intent to produce a list.
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 concise sentence of 18 words, front-loaded with the main action. However, it is somewhat vague and could benefit from additional structure, such as mentioning what the checklist contains.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is too brief to be complete. It does not explain what a 'concrete asset checklist' is, how it is structured, or how the agent should use the resulting plan. The agent would likely need to infer or experiment.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters1/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 0% schema description coverage, meaning parameter descriptions are absent. The tool description does not explain any of the four parameters (assetTypes, artDirection, targetPlatform, gameDescription); it only vaguely references a 'Cocos game'. This fails to compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 the action ('Create') and the resource ('concrete asset checklist'), and it distinguishes this tool from sibling generation tools by specifying it is for planning before generation. The phrase 'for a Cocos game' narrows the context.
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?
The description implies this tool is for planning before asset generation ('so the calling coding agent can generate assets systematically'), but it does not explicitly state when to use it over alternatives or provide exclusions. The sibling tools are all generation-focused, so the context hints at a sequential workflow, but no direct guidance is given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It mentions transcoding to Cocos-ready format but does not state whether the operation is read-only, what files are created, authorization needs, or side effects. Critical behavioral context is missing.
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 sentence without wasted words. However, it is very brief and could be expanded with useful behavioral or param hints without becoming verbose. Efficiency is good but minimalism limits informativeness.
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?
For a tool with 7 parameters, a nested object, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is insufficient. It does not explain return values, output locations, or provide examples. The tool is moderately complex, yet the description adds little context.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is only 43%, meaning most parameters lack schema descriptions. The tool description adds no parameter-level information, forcing agents to rely on the incomplete schema. It does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 the tool generates a short sound effect and transcodes it into a Cocos-ready AudioClip file. The verb 'Generate' and resource 'sound effect' are specific, and the sibling tools include music loop and audio adaptation tools, so this tool is well-distinguished as producing short SFX.
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?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like asset_forge_generate_music_loop or asset_forge_adapt_audio. Usage context is implied by the name and sibling list, but no direct guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden. It does not disclose any behavioral traits such as required permissions, side effects (e.g., file overwriting), idempotency, or limits. The description is purely functional with no behavioral context.
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, well-structured sentence that conveys the core purpose efficiently. However, it could be slightly expanded to include critical details without sacrificing conciseness.
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?
Given the tool has 4 parameters including a complex nested object, no output schema, and no annotations, the description is insufficient. It does not explain the conversion process, required input format, or what the resulting AudioClip entails, leaving significant gaps for an agent.
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 50% (name and outputDir have descriptions; inputPath and postprocess do not at top level). The description adds no parameter-level details beyond the schema, though it implicitly refers to parameters by stating 'Convert an existing audio file'. Baseline 3 is appropriate given moderate schema coverage.
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 states a specific action ('Convert') on a specific resource ('existing audio file') to a specific target ('Cocos-ready AudioClip file'), clearly differentiating it from sibling tools that generate new assets or adapt other media types.
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?
The description implies usage for converting existing audio files for Cocos, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives like asset_forge_generate_music_loop or asset_forge_generate_sfx, nor does it provide any conditions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description must disclose behavioral traits. It mentions cleaning alpha/background and saving output, but lacks details on resource consumption, side effects, or prerequisites. This is adequate but not thorough.
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?
The description is a single concise sentence (14 words) that front-loads the core action and deliverables. Every word is informative with no redundant content.
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?
Given 11 parameters, 55% schema coverage, nested objects, and no output schema, the description is too minimal. It does not explain the manifest, the cleaning process, or provide usage guidance for the many optional parameters.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Parameters2/5
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The description does not add any meaning beyond what the input schema provides. Schema description coverage is 55%, so some parameters have documentation, but the description adds no extra context for parameter usage or relationships.
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 the tool generates a single sprite image, cleans its alpha/background, and saves a Cocos-ready PNG plus manifest. This verb+resource specificity distinguishes it from sibling tools like generate_sprite_sheet and generate_sprite_grid_sheet, which handle multiple sprites.
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 implies use for individual sprites via 'single sprite', which provides context to differentiate from sheet-generating siblings. However, it does not explicitly state when to avoid using this tool or name alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full burden. It discloses the redaction behavior, which is valuable. However, it does not mention any required permissions, error conditions, or the return format. While adequate for a simple tool, it could be more transparent about what the configuration includes.
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?
The description is a single sentence that immediately states the purpose and key behavior. It is front-loaded and contains no superfluous information, earning every character.
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?
Given zero parameters and no output schema, the description provides enough context: it returns the config with secrets redacted. It does not describe the output format, but that is not strictly required. For a tool of this simplicity, it is nearly complete.
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 input schema has zero parameters and 100% coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds no parameter info (none needed) but also doesn't introduce confusion. It appropriately relies on the schema for parameter information.
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 the action ('Return'), the specific resource ('active Cocos Asset Forge MCP configuration'), and a notable behavioral trait ('with secrets redacted'). It distinctly separates this tool from its sibling generation/adaptation tools, which serve entirely different purposes.
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?
The description does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives, but the context of being a configuration retrieval tool implicitly differentiates it. No exclusions or alternative tool references are provided, which is acceptable for a simple getter but still lacks explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cocos-asset-forge-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lightblink/cocos-asset-forge-mcp/badges/card.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lightblink/cocos-asset-forge-mcp)

Score Badge

Copy to your README.md:

[![cocos-asset-forge-mcp MCP server](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lightblink/cocos-asset-forge-mcp/badges/score.svg)](https://glama.ai/mcp/servers/lightblink/cocos-asset-forge-mcp)

Latest Blog Posts

Who's Calling? MCP Hosts Are an Identity Blind Spot (And the Spec Knows It)
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 25, 2026.
mcp
Agent Identity
OAuth 2.1
Your AI Chatbot Just Exposed Your CEO's Salary to an Intern
By Om-Shree-0709 on July 2, 2026.
Agent Identity
MCP Security
OAuth Delegation
Why MCP Servers Need Execution Sandboxing (And Why Your Current Stack Isn't Enough)
By Om-Shree-0709 on June 30, 2026.
Agentic Ai
Prompt Injection
WebAssembly

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/lightblink/cocos-asset-forge-mcp'

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