Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In
Garden Design MCP Server

Garden Design MCP Server

by zaprojektuj-ogrod
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
TypeScript
Local

focus_on

Centers the garden camera on a specified X/Y area, optionally fitting a width and height, to inspect or review a design region.

Instructions

Focus the camera on a specific area in the garden

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": {
      "x": "<x>",
      "y": "<y>"
    },
    "name": "focus_on"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
xYesCenter X — units determined by set_units (default 'm', meters)
yYesCenter Y — units determined by set_units (default 'm', meters)
widthNoOptional: Bounds width to fit in view
heightNoOptional: Bounds height to fit in view

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv2.9.3

TDQS

C2.9/5.0
Behavior2/5

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

No annotations are supplied, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only restates the action. It does not explain whether the focus is persistent, how it relates to set_units, what happens for out-of-bounds areas, or what the call returns.

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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It communicates the core action immediately and wastes no words.

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

Completeness2/5

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

For a camera/view-affecting tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is too thin. It omits prerequisites, state effects, and the relationship to adjacent view tools, leaving important context uncovered.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds only the idea of a 'specific area' and does not clarify the x/y center semantics or optional width/height beyond what the schema already documents.

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 ('Focus') and resource ('camera') plus the target ('specific area in the garden'). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like zoom_image or set_view_mode.

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?

Provides no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as zoom_image or set_view_mode. The agent must infer when focusing the camera is the right choice.

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