Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Goxel-MCP

Goxel-MCP

by yberudev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Read voxels / summary

goxel_get_voxels
Read-only

Retrieve a scene summary or list voxels in a specified region to inspect layers, bounding boxes, colors, and coordinates.

Instructions

Scene summary (layers, bounding boxes, most used colors) and, optionally, the list of voxels of a region.

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": "goxel_get_voxels"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
listNoInclude the voxel list [x, y, z, '#rrggbbaa']
layerNoLayer name or id (default: the active layer)
limitNo
regionNoRegion: a min/max box and/or a shape

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.5/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already establishes the safety profile. The description adds useful detail about what the summary contains, but it does not disclose how the limit parameter affects results, whether output is truncated, or how the summary interacts with the layer and region filters.

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?

A single sentence with zero waste, front-loading the primary summary behavior before the optional voxel list. It covers the tool's dual nature efficiently.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness3/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has four parameters, a complex nested region object, no output schema, and no required fields. The description does not clarify whether the summary is always scene-wide or filtered by layer/region, nor does it explain limit-driven truncation, leaving gaps for an agent to infer.

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 75%, so the schema already documents most parameters including the nested region shape. The description maps the optional voxel list to the 'list' and 'region' concepts, but adds little about 'layer' scoping or 'limit' behavior beyond what the schema provides.

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 states a clear verb and resource: it returns a scene summary (layers, bounding boxes, most used colors) and optionally a voxel list for a region. This distinguishes the two modes of the tool, though it does not differentiate it from sibling tools like goxel_info or goxel_layers.

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 word 'optionally' implies that the voxel list is opt-in, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus goxel_info, goxel_layers, or other siblings. Usage is inferable but not stated.

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