Converts grayscale floor-plan images into static cuboid wall, door, and window segments for CoppeliaSim scenes.
Create static cuboid segments from grayscale floor-plan pixels classified as walls, doors, and windows.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| headless | No | ||
| door_range | Yes | ||
| image_path | Yes | ||
| pixel_size | Yes | ||
| wall_range | Yes | ||
| door_height | Yes | ||
| respondable | No | ||
| wall_height | Yes | ||
| window_range | Yes | ||
| window_height | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full burden, yet it does not disclose that this mutates the scene by instantiating objects, whether existing scene content is affected, whether a running CoppeliaSim instance is required, or what headless/respondable do. Only the word 'Create' implies mutation, which is not enough for a scene-mutating tool with zero annotation coverage.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
A single, front-loaded sentence with no filler; it is efficient, though it is arguably too terse given the tool's parameter complexity.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a 10-parameter (8 required) scene-construction tool with no annotations, no output schema, and undocumented parameters, the description is far too thin. An agent could not reliably choose values for the six required numeric/range parameters from this text alone.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
With 10 parameters and 0% schema description coverage, the description needs to compensate heavily but only hints at the domain (grayscale pixel classification). It never explains what wall_range/door_range/window_range integer arrays mean (presumably intensity thresholds), what units pixel_size uses, or what headless and respondable control.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description gives a specific verb ('Create') and a precise resource ('static cuboid segments from grayscale floor-plan pixels classified as walls, doors, and windows'), which clearly separates it from siblings like coppelia_import_model or coppelia_scene. It just stops short of naming an alternative explicitly.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus coppelia_import_model or coppelia_scene, nor any prerequisite such as needing an active simulation or a specific image format. The agent must infer usage entirely from the purpose sentence.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.