Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Goxel-MCP

Goxel-MCP

by yberudev
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

Live connection

goxel_live

Manage the connection to a running Goxel bridge: check status, connect for live scene editing, or disconnect to file mode while retaining the current scene in memory.

Instructions

Status of the connection to a running Goxel: status, connect (to a Goxel already started with the bridge), disconnect (back to file mode, keeping the current scene in memory).

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "action": "<action>"
    },
    "name": "goxel_live"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
actionYes

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?

With no annotations provided, the description carries full disclosure burden. It usefully notes that connect requires Goxel already started with the bridge and that disconnect returns to file mode while keeping the scene in memory — genuine behavioral context — but says nothing about errors, permissions, or what status reports.

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?

A single compact sentence front-loads the resource and enumerates the actions with brief qualifiers. No filler; slightly dense but efficient.

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?

For a three-action connection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers connect/disconnect behavior adequately but leaves the 'status' result and failure modes unexplained. Adequate but with clear gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 0% with a single required enum parameter, and the description compensates well by attaching meaning to each of the three values: status, connect, and disconnect (with its side effect). Only the return semantics of 'status' remains vague.

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 the resource (the live connection to Goxel) and names the three actions it exposes: status, connect, disconnect. It is clearly distinct from file-scene siblings, though it does not explicitly say it is the only live-connection tool.

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?

It implies when each action is appropriate (connect to an already-running bridged Goxel, disconnect back to file mode) but never states explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, such as what to do if no live session exists.

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