Assign a named material to a specific object in Cinema 4D to set its surface appearance.
Apply a material to an object.
Args:
material_name: Name of the material to apply
object_name: Name of the object to apply the material to
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object_name | Yes | ||
| material_name | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does 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 the high-level action but does not mention side effects, whether existing material assignments are replaced, required preconditions, or error behavior.
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 extremely concise, front-loads the action, and the Args section is compact and readable. Every part contributes value without redundancy.
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?
The description plus input schema is sufficient to know the required arguments and the basic action, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. However, it omits important context like whether the material must already exist, how this differs from apply_shader, and what happens if the object or material is invalid.
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%, but the description provides semantic meaning for both parameters: material_name is the material to apply and object_name is the target object. This compensates well for the empty schema descriptions, though it adds no constraints or additional details.
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 uses a specific verb and resource ('Apply a material to an object'), making the core action clear. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling apply_shader, so it lacks differentiation from a closely related tool.
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 about when to use this tool versus alternatives like apply_shader or create_material, and no mention of prerequisites such as whether the material or object must already exist. The agent must infer usage from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.