Inspect rig hierarchy, rest poses, constraints, and name evidence to map objects with confidence scores and alternatives; read-only, with no scene mutation.
Hierarchy/rest/constraint/name evidence, confidence and alternatives; no mutation.
| 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?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint false, and openWorldHint false, so the description's 'no mutation' mostly repeats structured data. It adds no meaningful behavioral context such as confidence thresholds, how alternatives are generated, or any operational constraints.
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 short and free of filler, but it is a cryptic semicolon fragment rather than a front-loaded action statement. Its brevity comes at the cost of clarity.
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?
Although annotations cover safety and an output schema exists, the description is far too sparse for a parameterized rig-semantics tool. It omits the required object_name semantics, the purpose of options, and any routing guidance among many rig analysis siblings.
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 does not mention object_name or options at all. With two undocumented parameters, the description completely fails to compensate for the schema gap.
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 noun-phrase fragment listing evidence categories rather than a clear verb plus resource. It never states what rig_map_semantics actually does, so an agent cannot confidently distinguish it from siblings like rig_analyze, rig_classify, or rig_compatibility_report.
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 instead of alternatives. The only usage-adjacent phrase is 'no mutation', which does not explain the appropriate context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.