Maya Retopo MCP

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

maya.health

Read-onlyIdempotent

Verify the loopback connection to Maya and return its version, current scene, and active mode so you can confirm a local session before retopology work.

Instructions

Comprueba conexión loopback con Maya, versión, escena actual y modo activo.

Tool call template

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": "maya.health"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Nov 6, 2026

TDQS

A3.7/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the call reports version, scene, and active mode, which is useful context, but it does not say what happens on failure (error vs. degraded status) or how the result is shaped.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single compact sentence with the action front-loaded and the returned information listed after it. No redundant or filler wording.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple zero-parameter health check with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and what information it yields. The only missing piece is failure/error behavior, which matters for a connectivity probe but is a minor gap given the tool's simplicity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; the baseline of 4 applies. The description correctly implies a no-argument probe.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb ('Comprueba') and resource ('conexión loopback con Maya') and enumerates what the check surfaces: version, current scene, and active mode. It is clearly distinguishable as a diagnostic/health tool, though there are no siblings to differentiate against.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Usage is only implied by the word 'Comprueba' — an agent can infer this is a connectivity/health probe, but the description never states when to call it (e.g., before other Maya operations, on connection errors) or what to do with the result. No alternatives exist, so the gap is modest.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools

maya.healthA