Set visibility for multiple objects in a single batch call, controlling viewport and render visibility simultaneously.
Set visibility for multiple objects in one call.
Each entry: {"name": "Obj", "visible": true, "hide_render": false}
Args: visibilities: List of visibility dicts.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| visibilities | 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. It states the mutation (setting visibility) but does not disclose validation behavior, handling of invalid or missing object names, partial-failure semantics, idempotency, or what the response indicates. For a batch mutation tool this is a meaningful gap.
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?
Compact and efficient: a front-loaded purpose sentence followed by the entry format and an args line. Every sentence earns its place with no filler, though the format example consumes space that could have been used for key semantics.
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 single-parameter batch tool with no output schema, the description documents the input format adequately to attempt a call. Missing return-value/error behavior and key semantics (hide_render defaults) leave it short of fully specifying the operation, but the call signature is usable.
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 0%, so the description must fully document the parameter. It provides the dict structure and an example with keys (name, visible, hide_render), which adds real value. However, it does not explain the meaning of hide_render, whether it is optional, or defaults, leaving the semantics incomplete.
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?
States a specific verb ('Set') and resource (visibility for multiple objects) with the clarifying phrase 'in one call', which distinguishes it from single-object tools like set_object_visibility and set_collection_visibility. It doesn't explicitly name those siblings, but the batch intent is clear enough to set it apart.
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?
No guidance on when to use this tool versus its single-object alternatives (set_object_visibility, set_collection_visibility). The description implies batch usage but gives no exclusions, prerequisites, or conditions that would select this over a sibling.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.