Inspect BatchedMesh geometry counts, draw ranges, and instance visibility; omit name or UUID to list all batched meshes.
[INSPECT] Read-only. BatchedMesh: geometry counts, draw ranges, instance visibility. Lists all if no name/uuid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | BatchedMesh name | |
| uuid | No | BatchedMesh UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so 'Read-only' largely restates structured data. The one genuine addition is the batching behavior ('lists all if no name/uuid'), which discloses a useful side effect of omitting parameters. No return-format or pagination detail, so with annotations covering safety this lands at the midpoint.
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, front-loaded with the [INSPECT] category tag and the read-only marker. No filler or redundancy; every clause contributes.
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?
No output schema exists, but the description compensates by naming the returned fields (geometry counts, draw ranges, instance visibility). Combined with the optional-filter behavior, an agent has enough to invoke and interpret the tool, though it doesn't explain the return shape's structure.
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 coverage is 100% and both parameters (name, uuid) are self-documented, so the schema already carries the load. The description adds that these act as optional filters whose absence returns everything, marginally deepening the semantics, but nothing about identifier format or precedence between name and uuid.
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?
States a specific verb/resource pair (inspect BatchedMesh) and enumerates what the read returns: geometry counts, draw ranges, instance visibility. This clearly distinguishes it from the adjacent instanced_mesh_details and geometry_details siblings. An agent can tell what it does without opening the schema.
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?
Implied usage only: 'Lists all if no name/uuid' tells the agent how to broaden the query, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance and no routing against alternatives such as instanced_mesh_details or geometry_details. Adequate but leaves sibling selection to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.