Create a MoGraph Cloner object in Cinema 4D using grid, radial, or linear types to procedurally duplicate objects in your scene.
Create a MoGraph Cloner object of specified type.
Args:
cloner_type: Type of cloner (grid, radial, linear)
name: Optional name for the cloner
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| cloner_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. It discloses that a cloner is created, but does not mention whether it replaces an existing cloner, whether it requires a selected object, what the default name is, or any side effects. For a creation tool, this is a notable 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?
The description is short and front-loaded with the main purpose. The Args section is compact. It earns its place, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming bloated.
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?
Given that there is no output schema and no annotations, the description is incomplete. It does not mention what the tool returns (e.g., the created cloner's path or ID), nor any prerequisites or side effects. An agent would need more context to invoke it confidently.
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 explain cloner_type (grid, radial, linear) and name (optional), but it does not clarify the exact accepted values for cloner_type (e.g., case sensitivity, exact strings) or how the name is used. The description adds some meaning but leaves ambiguity.
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 specific verb ('Create') and resource ('MoGraph Cloner object'), and names the cloner types (grid, radial, linear). It is clear what the tool does, though it does not explicitly distinguish it from sibling tools like add_primitive or add_effector.
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 is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as add_primitive or add_effector. The description implies it is for creating cloners, but there is no explicit context or exclusion.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.