Import OBJ 3D model content into CAD drawings, adding vertices and faces from a file path or encoded string.
Import OBJ content.
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "import_obj"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| content | No | ||
| encoding | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does 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, and it discloses nothing. It does not say where the imported geometry lands (current document, new layer, origin placement), whether it overwrites or merges, how path vs content are resolved, or how the encoding enum affects parsing.
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 single sentence is short but that brevity reflects under-specification rather than economy; nothing an agent needs is front-loaded because nothing is provided at all.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, no parameter documentation, and a description no longer than the tool name, the definition is completely inadequate for an import tool that parses file content into the model.
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?
All three parameters (path, content, encoding enum of utf8/base64) have 0% schema description coverage, and the description adds no meaning whatsoever. In particular it never explains the relationship between path and content or the semantics of the base64 option, leaving a 3-param tool fully undocumented.
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?
"Import OBJ content" is essentially a restatement of the tool name import_obj, giving a verb and a resource but no more. It does not distinguish this importer from the many sibling importers (import_step, import_iges, import_stl, import_svg), nor explain what "content" means here. Borderline tautology rather than a genuine purpose statement.
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?
There is no guidance on when to choose this over import_step, import_iges, import_stl, or any other import path, and no mention of prerequisites or context. The only implied usage comes from the name itself, which is already visible to the agent.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.