Skip to main content
Glama
putervision

world-model-mcp

by putervision
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

record_outcome

Apply executed action results to entities by recording movement deltas, property changes, destruction status, or 60Hz spooled outcomes, keeping the world model updated without hand-authoring entities.

Instructions

Record action execution results, movement deltas, property changes, entity destruction, or spool outcome ingestion from 60Hz loop. Not for vision ingest or manual pose edits. Mark entity destroyed via status: "destroyed". Returns {ok, action, success:boolean, ...}. Use record_outcome instead of update_entity when applying executed action results and status deltas rather than hand-authoring entities.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
itemsNoAlias for spooled_outcomes batch array
actionNoAction type: "record" (default) for single outcome or "from_tick" for 60Hz batch spool ingestion
projectNoOptional project identifier
successNoWhether the action succeeded
task_idNoLinked task ID
destroyedNoIf true, marks entity as destroyed
entity_idNoPrimary entity affected
action_nameNoName of the executed action (e.g. move_to, pickup, place, destroy)
affordance_maskNoUpdated affordance bitmask after action
property_changesNoUpdated properties to merge
spooled_outcomesNoBatch of spooled outcomes to ingest from 60Hz loop off-tick execution
resulting_positionNoNew position of entity after action
resulting_velocityNoNew velocity vector of entity after action

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed6 schema fields changedv0.6.0
    • addedInput schema / properties / action
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Action type: \"record\" (default) for single outcome or \"from_tick\" for 60Hz batch spool ingestion",
+  "enum": [
+    "record",
+    "from_tick"
+  ],
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / affordance_mask
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Updated affordance bitmask after action",
+  "type": "number"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / items
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for spooled_outcomes batch array",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / resulting_velocity
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "New velocity vector of entity after action",
+  "properties": {
+    "x": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "y": {
+      "type": "number"
+    },
+    "z": {
+      "type": "number"
+    }
+  },
+  "type": "object"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / spooled_outcomes
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Batch of spooled outcomes to ingest from 60Hz loop off-tick execution",
+  "items": {
+    "type": "object"
+  },
+  "type": "array"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "action_name",
-  "success"
-]
  2. Changed4 schema fields changedv0.4.1
    • removedInput schema / $schema
      Removed value: -"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"
    • removedInput schema / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -false
    • removedInput schema / properties / property_changes / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -{}
    • removedInput schema / properties / resulting_position / additionalProperties
      Removed value: -true
  3. First observedv0.3.1

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), so the description's main added value is the return shape ({ok, action, success:boolean}) and the 60Hz off-tick spool ingestion mode, both of which are useful. However, the claim that the tool records 'entity destruction' sits in tension with destructiveHint=false, and the description does not clarify idempotency or what happens on repeated ingestion of the same spool batch — a real gap given idempotentHint=false.

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?

Four tight sentences, front-loaded with the primary capability before exclusions and alternatives. It is dense but every clause carries routing or return-value information; no filler sentences.

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 usefully supplies the return shape, and it covers both the single-record and batch-spool modes despite 13 parameters and 0 required fields. It could be more explicit about what happens if neither entity_id nor items is supplied, but overall it is complete enough to invoke correctly.

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% across 13 parameters, so the baseline is 3 and the schema already documents enum values ('record' default, 'from_tick' batch) and the batch alias. The description adds little beyond that, and its instruction to mark destruction 'via status: "destroyed"' does not match the actual boolean `destroyed` parameter, which is a minor but real inaccuracy.

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 verb (record) and enumerates the exact resource types handled: action execution results, movement deltas, property changes, entity destruction, and 60Hz spool ingestion. It actively distinguishes itself from siblings by ruling out vision ingest and manual pose edits and by contrasting with update_entity.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

It gives explicit when-not guidance ('Not for vision ingest or manual pose edits') and names the alternative with the selecting condition ('Use record_outcome instead of update_entity when applying executed action results and status deltas rather than hand-authoring entities'). Nothing about tool selection is left to inference.

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