Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Goxel-MCP

Goxel-MCP

by yberudev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Goxel / server information

goxel_info
Read-only

Retrieves Goxel server and version details, file or live mode, supported formats, and a current scene summary to verify setup and editing context.

Instructions

Server version, Goxel versions (sources, app, bridge binary), mode (file / live), supported formats and a summary of the current scene.

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_info"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault

No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.0

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The readOnlyHint annotation already covers the safety profile. The description adds useful behavioral context by disclosing exactly what categories of information are returned, including versions, mode, and scene summary; it does not contradict the annotation but also adds no notes about permissions or response format.

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 compact sentence lists the relevant returned information with no filler. It is appropriately sized for a simple no-parameter info tool and front-loads the key content.

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 no-parameter, read-only tool with no output schema, the description adequately enumerates what the caller gets back. It is slightly vague about what the 'summary of the current scene' includes, but the overall scope is understandable.

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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to clarify beyond the schema. The baseline for a no-parameter tool is 4.

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 clearly identifies this as an information-retrieval tool by enumerating the server, version, mode, format, and scene-summary data it returns. It lacks an explicit verb like 'Get' and does not explicitly contrast itself with sibling tools, but the read-only diagnostic purpose is clear.

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?

Usage is implied: call this when you need server/version metadata or a scene overview rather than when you intend to modify the scene. However, there is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no stated alternatives, and no exclusions.

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