在指定经纬度放置 3D 模型（glTF/GLB），返回 entityId
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| url | Yes | glTF/GLB 模型文件 URL | |
| roll | No | 翻滚角（度） | |
| label | No | 模型标注文本 | |
| pitch | No | 俯仰角（度） | |
| scale | No | 模型缩放比例 | |
| height | No | 放置高度（米） | |
| heading | No | 航向角（度），0=正北 | |
| latitude | Yes | 纬度（-90 ~ 90） | |
| longitude | Yes | 经度（-180 ~ 180） |
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already indicate this is a mutating operation (readOnlyHint=false). The description adds that the tool returns an entityId, which is useful. However, it does not disclose side effects like whether it replaces existing entities, or any permission/error considerations. With annotations covering the safety profile, a 3 is appropriate.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence that captures the essential action and return value without waste. Every part earns its place.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a straightforward creation tool with a rich schema, the description covers the core purpose and return value. It doesn't explain layer association or removal, but given the simplicity and existing schema coverage, it is sufficiently complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the input schema already documents all 9 parameters including defaults and units (degrees, meters, scale). The description does not add parameter-specific semantic details beyond what the schema provides, hence the baseline score of 3.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the tool places a 3D model (glTF/GLB) at specified longitude/latitude and returns an entityId. This specific verb+resource+scope distinguishes it from siblings like addBox or addMarker, which add different geometry types.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description provides clear context: use this tool when you need to place a glTF/GLB 3D model at geographic coordinates. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use it, but the specific model format and placement scope imply differentiation from other add* siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Multiple tools share conceptual boundaries (e.g., addMarker vs addBillboard vs addLabel, addPolyline vs addCorridor vs addWall, flyTo vs setView), though descriptions clarify most cases. The overlap is notable given the large tool count.
All tools use lowerCamelCase with a consistent verb-first pattern (add*, load*, set*, remove*, update*). Some generic verbs like control and update are reused, but the naming is predictable and readable.
43 tools is well beyond the recommended range. Many add* functions for different primitive types could be consolidated into one entity-creation tool, reducing bloat and cognitive load without sacrificing capability.
The tool set offers strong coverage across entities, layers, camera controls, and animations. Minor gaps include lack of entity information retrieval and direct geometry re-editing, but core workflows are well supported.