Validates a local game mesh package and neutral texture handoff, running a dry run by default without external apps or export.
Validate a local package and neutral texture handoff; default dry run, no external app or export.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dry_run | No | ||
| options | No | ||
| bake_pair | Yes | ||
| qa_report | No | ||
| operation_id | No | ||
| relationship | Yes | ||
| triangulated_relationship | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.9.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the write/mutation profile (readOnly=false, idempotent=false, destructive=false, openWorld=false). The description usefully adds that it runs in default dry-run mode and does not invoke an external app or export, which is real context beyond annotations. However it never states what changes occur in a non-dry-run invocation or what is written to disk.
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?
It is a single compact sentence with no filler, and the dry-run/no-external-app constraint is front-loaded. But it is terse to the point of under-specification for a 7-parameter tool, so brevity trades away needed detail.
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 values need not be explained, but for a non-read-only, non-idempotent tool with 7 undocumented parameters the description is far too thin. It lacks required-input expectations, side effects of non-dry-run execution, and how it relates to the nearby validate/prepare 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?
There are 7 parameters with 0% schema description coverage, and the description names none of them explicitly. 'Default dry run' faintly implies the dry_run flag, and 'neutral texture handoff' hints at bake_pair/relationship, but required fields like relationship and triangulated_relationship, plus options, qa_report, and operation_id, are left entirely unexplained.
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 name/title says 'prepare_package' but the description says 'Validate a local package and neutral texture handoff', leaving the primary verb ambiguous (prepare vs validate). It names the resource (local package, texture handoff) but does not distinguish it from game_mesh_validate or bake_prepare_pairs in the crowded game-mesh/bake sibling set.
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 only usage-oriented signal is 'default dry run, no external app or export', which describes default behavior rather than when to choose this tool over alternatives. No preconditions, no when-not guidance, and no mention of the relevant validate/prepare siblings.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.