Generates organic abstract shapes, such as blobs and metaballs, for use in Cinema 4D scenes.
Create an organic, abstract shape.
Args:
shape_type: Type of shape (blob, metaball)
name: Optional name for the shape
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| shape_type | 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 says only that a shape is created, without explaining side effects, whether the shape is inserted into the current scene, failure behavior, or any prerequisites. This is minimal and leaves an agent to infer the consequences of calling the tool.
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 short, front-loaded with the purpose, and documents both arguments without fluff. It is efficient for a two-parameter tool, though it is somewhat skeletal and includes no contextual sentence beyond the purpose.
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 simple creation tool with an output schema, the parameter definitions are sufficient and return values are likely covered by the output schema. However, the description omits broader context such as where the shape appears, how it can be referenced later, and when it should be chosen over sibling creation tools.
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 compensate. It does add real meaning by enumerating shape_type values ('blob, metaball') and clarifying that name is optional, which the schema does not convey beyond generic string/null types.
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 states a concrete action and resource: 'Create an organic, abstract shape.' The resource type is distinctive enough to separate it from siblings like add_primitive and create_light, though it never names those alternatives explicitly.
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 such as add_primitive or create_mograph_cloner. The only usage signal is the imperative 'Create an organic, abstract shape,' which implies a context but does not state exclusions or trade-offs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.