Skip to main content
Glama
rokibul-mist

rhino-mcp

by rokibul-mist
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersScoreDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Hybrid

rhino_run_macro

Execute a sequence of Rhino commands in order, returning per-step results and an overall success flag.

Instructions

    Execute a sequence of Rhino commands (macro) one step at a time.
    
    Args:
    macro_steps: List of command strings to execute in order.
    
    Returns:
    Dict with 'steps' containing per-step results and overall 'success' flag.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
macro_stepsYes

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv1.0.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

With no annotations, the description must convey behavior. It mentions 'one step at a time' and the return format (steps and success flag), but does not disclose side effects like document modification, error handling, or permission requirements. Partial transparency.

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 extremely concise, two sentences, covering purpose, parameter, and return format without unnecessary elaboration. Every sentence contributes.

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?

For a tool of this simplicity, the description covers the essential aspects: what it does, the parameter, and the return structure. It omits edge cases and side effects, but these are not critical for a macro runner. Slightly incomplete but sufficient.

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 description explicitly explains the only parameter 'macro_steps' as a list of command strings in execution order. Since schema description coverage is 0%, this textual explanation is the sole source of parameter meaning and is adequate.

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 executes a sequence of Rhino commands (macro) one step at a time. This is a specific verb (execute) and resource (Rhino commands) that distinguishes it from sibling tools.

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 lacks any guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It does not mention scenarios, prerequisites, or fallback options, leaving the agent to infer usage.

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