Inspect a rig object’s control setup to identify constraint targets, poles, control candidates, properties, and driver relationships, helping debug rig behavior and production readiness.
Constraint targets, poles, control candidates, properties and driver relationships.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| options | No | ||
| object_name | Yes |
| 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?
The annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world behavior, so safety is covered. The description adds only a list of inspected entity types and omits scope, prerequisites, and what the analysis actually reports; it does not contradict the annotations.
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 fragment is short but under-specified rather than efficient: it is a noun phrase without an action or structure. There is no front-loaded statement of what the tool does.
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 the return format does not need explanation in the description. However, for a callable analysis tool with a required argument and opaque options object, the definition still fails to explain the tool's action and inputs.
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 both parameters, and the description never mentions object_name or options. It provides no compensation for the undocumented required object_name or the opaque options object.
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 is a bare noun list with no verb, so it never states that the tool analyzes anything. An agent can only infer from the name rig_analyze_controls that this inspects rig controls, and the listing does not distinguish it from siblings such as rig_analyze or rig_analyze_limbs.
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, when not to use it, or which sibling analysis tool to choose instead. Among many rig_* analysis siblings, the agent is left to guess the selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.