Apply material presets to multiple objects at once by specifying object names, preset types, and colors.
Apply material presets to multiple objects in one call.
Each entry: {"object": "name", "preset": "metal", "color": [r,g,b]}
Args: assignments: List of material preset assignments.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| assignments | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states that the tool applies presets, implying mutation, but does not describe permissions, error handling, partial failures, undo behavior, or what happens when an object or preset is invalid.
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 front-loaded with the core purpose and keeps the example and argument definition compact. The Args section is slightly redundant with the schema but does not add meaningful bloat.
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?
Given no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description must compensate but does not. It fails to explain valid preset values, whether color is optional, behavior on missing objects, or what the tool returns, making correct invocation uncertain.
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?
The schema provides no property descriptions and marks items as additionalProperties: true, so the example entry {"object": "name", "preset": "metal", "color": [r,g,b]} adds meaningful structure. However, it does not specify required fields, valid preset names, color format details, or optionality, leaving significant ambiguity.
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 verb and resource: apply material presets to multiple objects in one call. The batch scope distinguishes it from single-object tools like assign_material, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 phrase 'to multiple objects in one call' implies a batching use case, but there is no explicit guidance on when to prefer this over assign_material, wizard_batch_materials, or a single assignment tool. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.