Inspect local COLLADA, glTF, GLB, or texture exports to record their SHA256 hash. Checks file metadata, not upload eligibility, LOD quality, land impact, or in-world appearance.
Inspect a local COLLADA/glTF/GLB/texture export and record its SHA256. This checks file metadata, not upload eligibility, LOD quality, land impact or in-world appearance.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds real value beyond that: it discloses that a SHA256 is computed and recorded, and it explicitly lists what the inspection does NOT cover, preventing an agent from over-trusting the result as a validation gate.
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?
Two tight sentences with zero filler; the positive capability is front-loaded and the negative scoping follows immediately. Every clause earns its place.
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 one-parameter, read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description is nearly sufficient: it states the input domain, the computed artifact (SHA256) and the exclusions. It could still be more complete about what metadata is returned and where the hash is recorded, but no critical gap prevents correct invocation.
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% for the single 'filename' parameter, so the description carries some of the burden: it implies a local file reference and enumerates accepted asset kinds (COLLADA, glTF, GLB, texture). It still says nothing about path form, relative-vs-absolute resolution, or whether the file must already exist, so it only partially compensates.
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?
Specific verb (inspect) plus a concrete resource (local COLLADA/glTF/GLB/texture export) and a stated effect (records its SHA256). The second sentence draws explicit boundaries against adjacent concerns like upload eligibility, LOD quality and land impact, which separates it from siblings such as mesh_upload_status or mesh_preview_camera.
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?
The description gives a clear when-not ('not upload eligibility, LOD quality, land impact or in-world appearance'), which implicitly scopes usage to a pre-upload metadata/hash check. However it never names an alternative tool or states prerequisites such as where the local file must reside or whether the path is absolute, so routing guidance is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.