Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
DX12 Engine MCP Server

DX12 Engine MCP Server

by ryuto-alt
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

PBR マテリアル設定

dx12_set_pbr
Idempotent

Set PBR parameters (metallic, roughness, UV scale) for a game entity by ID or name. Returns updated values upon successful application.

Instructions

エンティティの PBR パラメータ(metallic/roughness/UV スケール)を設定する。指定分のみ更新。即時反映で {entityId, metallic, roughness, uvScaleU, uvScaleV} を返す。

Tool call template

This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {},
    "name": "dx12_set_pbr"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameNoエンティティ名(完全一致)。id の代わりに使える。Stop 後など id が変わる場面で安定。
entityNoエンティティ id(int)。name と排他。
metallicNo金属度 0..1
uvScaleUNoUV の U 方向スケール(タイリング)
uvScaleVNoUV の V 方向スケール(タイリング)
roughnessNo粗さ 0..1

Output Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultNoエンジンからの生の結果。実際の形は各ツールの説明 / dx12_describe_components を参照。text にも同内容を JSON 文字列で格納。

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already provide idempotentHint=true. The description adds valuable behavioral context: it updates only specified parameters and provides immediate return values. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Two sentences, no extra words. Front-loaded with the main action. Every sentence provides essential information.

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 with 6 parameters and an output schema, the description adequately explains the functionality, parameter update behavior, and return values. It could mention what happens when no parameters are given, but that is implicitly covered by 'only updates specified ones.'

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?

Input schema has 100% description coverage for all 6 parameters. The description lists the key parameters (metallic, roughness, UV scale) and mentions the return values, which adds marginal value beyond the schema. Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 sets PBR parameters (metallic, roughness, UV scale) of an entity. It specifies that only provided parameters are updated, which distinguishes it from other set tools like set_color or set_texture among the siblings.

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 prerequisites, exclusions, or scenarios where other tools like set_color or set_texture might be more appropriate.

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