Add loop cuts to a mesh along a specified axis with a set number of cuts. Control mesh topology precisely by selecting the object, cut count, and axis.
Add loop cuts to a mesh.
Args: object_name: Object name. number_cuts: Number of cuts. axis: X, Y, or Z axis.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| axis | No | X | |
| number_cuts | No | ||
| object_name | 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 must carry the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It only states the action; it doesn't disclose whether the object must be a mesh, if it requires edit mode, selection requirements, or that it permanently modifies geometry.
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 brief and front-loads the purpose in one sentence, then lists args. No fluff. It's appropriately sized for a simple operation, though it could add more context without becoming verbose.
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 mutation tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description is thin. It lacks prerequisites (object must be a mesh), scope of effect (all faces vs selected), and any confirmation feedback. An agent is left guessing about operational details.
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 is the only param documentation. But it merely restates the parameter names ('Object name', 'Number of cuts', 'X, Y, or Z axis') without adding constraints, defaults, or interaction effects. It adds marginal value over the schema's field names.
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 precisely: 'Add loop cuts to a mesh' – a clear verb and resource. The arg list clarifies axis and count, and the operation is distinct from siblings like subdivide_mesh or bevel_edges.
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 vs alternatives. With dozens of mesh-editing siblings (subdivide_mesh, bevel_edges, etc.), the description doesn't differentiate usage context, prerequisites, or when to choose this over other tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.