R3

See what is in an R3 project

r3_project_load

Read-onlyIdempotent

List the components in an existing R3 project — what it contains and, for each one, its entityRef: the name code addresses it by (this['mesh_cube_1']). Read this before writing any code for a project, and after any tool call whose outcome was reported as unknown, to see what actually landed. Value components (Vector3, Color, Scalar) are not listed individually — reach them through their owner, e.g. mesh.position.x.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`projectId`	Yes	The project to read, from r3_project_create or the R3 app.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description
`name`	Yes
`answer`	Yes	This answer in words: what was done, what R3 measured, decided or refused, and what to do next. The same text as the result's text block. Read it: the fields beside it are the data, this is the guidance.
`objects`	Yes
`projectId`	Yes
`componentCount`	Yes
`valueComponentCount`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

Changed2 schema fields changedOct 15, 2026

addedOutput schema / properties / answer

Added value: +{
+  "description": "This answer in words: what was done, what R3 measured, decided or refused, and what to do next. The same text as the result's text block. Read it: the fields beside it are the data, this is the guidance.",
+  "type": "string"
+}

changedOutput schema / required

Previous value: -[
-  "projectId",
-  "name",
-  "componentCount",
-  "objects",
-  "valueComponentCount"
-]New value: +[
+  "projectId",
+  "name",
+  "componentCount",
+  "objects",
+  "valueComponentCount",
+  "answer"
+]

First observedOct 15, 2026

TDQS

A4.3/5.0

Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavior beyond them: value components (Vector3, Color, Scalar) are intentionally not listed individually and must be reached through their owner, plus the 'see what actually landed' reconciliation use case. Return-format specifics are left to the output schema.

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?

Three sentences, all front-loaded: purpose first, then the entityRef concept, then usage triggers, then the value-component caveat. No filler, and each sentence carries distinct information.

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

Completeness5/5

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

The tool is simple (one param, output schema present, annotations present), and the description covers purpose, usage timing, and the one non-obvious output nuance. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100% and a single required parameter, the schema already documents projectId (its origin from r3_project_create or the app). The description adds no syntax or format detail beyond that, so the baseline of 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (List) and resource (the components in an existing R3 project), and immediately clarifies the key output concept (entityRef, the name code addresses components by). This distinguishes it from r3_project_list (projects) and r3_component_read (a single component) without the agent opening any schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit triggers: read before writing any code for a project, and after any tool call whose outcome was reported as unknown. This is clear when-to-use context, but it names no alternatives or when-not-to-use conditions, so it stops short of a 5.

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

All R3 tools Inspect

Try in Browser

Shareable, User-Owned Context BackendPeople, applications, and agents read, write, and coordinate together in one context lake. Reach it over MCP, a CLI, a Python SDK, or REST.fulcradynamics.comAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources

Need Help?