Reveal object, tag, and Capsule instance graphs in the active Cinema 4D document. Optionally filter by node space, owner GUID, or editable-only to narrow the inspection.
Discover object, tag, and Capsule instance graphs in the active document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| max_bytes | No | ||
| node_space | No | ||
| owner_guid | No | ||
| editable_only | No |
| 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 behavioral burden. 'Discover' vaguely suggests a read-only/no-side-effect operation, but there is no explicit statement about non-mutation, result size limits, or performance implications. The limit and max_bytes parameters hint at potentially large outputs, but the description is silent on this.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. However, it is under-specified for a five-parameter discovery tool; brevity alone does not make it appropriately sized.
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?
An output schema exists, so return structure is covered, and all parameters are optional. But the description still lacks essential context: what exactly constitutes an instance graph, how parameters constrain the discovery, and what makes this tool distinct from closely named siblings. Adequate is not achieved.
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%, and the description mentions none of the five parameters. While titles like 'Limit' and 'Max Bytes' are somewhat self-explanatory, 'node_space' and 'owner_guid' are ambiguous, and the description does nothing to clarify their purpose. It fails to compensate for the lack of schema descriptions.
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 action ('Discover'), specific resources ('object, tag, and Capsule instance graphs'), and a clear context ('active document'). It reads distinctly from siblings like list_objects (objects only) and inspect_capsule_graph (inspect, not discover instances), though it does not explicitly call out the difference.
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 use this tool versus the many sibling tools such as inspect_scene_nodes_graph, inspect_capsule_graph, or list_objects. No when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or alternative routing is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.