Goxel-MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Open scene

goxel_open_scene

Opens existing .gox, .vox, or .txt voxel files from the workspace and, in live mode, loads them into the Goxel editor for editing.

Instructions

Open an existing voxel file (.gox, .vox, .txt) from the workspace. In live mode the file is opened in the Goxel editor.

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": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "goxel_open_scene"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`path`	Yes	Path relative to the workspace

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 25, 2026

TDQS

B3.4/5.0

Behavior3/5

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

Annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the agent knows it mutates state but not how. The description usefully discloses the live-mode side effect of loading into the Goxel editor, but omits the critical question of what happens to the currently open scene (replacement, unsaved changes) and what is returned.

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?

Two sentences, no filler, and the core action plus formats lead the description before the conditional live-mode note. Appropriately sized for a one-parameter tool.

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?

With no output schema and a single well-documented parameter, most burden is lifted, but for a state-replacing open operation the description should address what happens to the existing scene and whether the call can fail on a missing/invalid path. Those gaps leave it merely adequate.

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 coverage is 100% with a single, fully described 'path' parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by listing the accepted file extensions (.gox/.vox/.txt), which is not in the schema, but supplies no path syntax, format-specific caveats, or error behavior.

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?

States a specific verb (open) plus the resource (existing voxel file) and enumerates accepted formats (.gox, .vox, .txt). It implicitly contrasts with goxel_new_scene by requiring an *existing* file, but never names the sibling, so differentiation is inferential rather than explicit.

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 by 'existing' file and workspace-relative path, and the live-mode clause hints at a second context. However, no explicit when-to-use guidance vs goxel_open_in_app, goxel_live, or goxel_new_scene is given, and no prerequisites (e.g., whether a scene must be closed first) are stated.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server