Inspect Three.js scenes for memory leaks by detecting geometries and textures still tracked by the renderer but no longer in the scene.
[INSPECT] Read-only. Leak detection: geometries/textures tracked by the renderer but no longer in the scene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / $schemaAdded value: +"http://json-schema.org/draft-07/schema#"v0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the full safety profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description's 'Read-only' line merely repeats that. It does add genuine value by defining what is inspected — resources tracked but absent from the scene — but says nothing about the shape of the result or comparison basis, which is left uncovered since there is no output schema.
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 short lines, tagged [INSPECT] and front-loaded with the read-only nature before the substantive purpose. No filler; every phrase carries information.
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 parameterless, read-only inspection tool with no output schema, the description covers what the tool does and its scope adequately. The remaining gap — what the returned leak list looks like — is minor given the absence of an output schema.
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?
The tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. Nothing in the description is needed to disambiguate inputs, and nothing is misleading.
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 function: detecting geometries/textures that are tracked by the renderer but no longer in the scene — a concretely defined leak-detection check, not a tautology of the name. It does not, however, name or distinguish itself from near-neighbor diagnostics like memory_stats or renderer_info, so an agent must infer the boundary.
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 implies when to reach for it (to find orphaned renderer resources / memory leaks) but gives no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to, or sibling alternative guidance. Against a large diagnostics sibling set, the usage boundary is left to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.