Inspect per-object draw call and triangle costs, sorted by cost. Identify multi-material objects and hidden geometry to optimize Three.js scene performance.
[INSPECT] Read-only. Per-object draw call and triangle cost, sorted by cost. Flags multi-material objects and hidden geometry.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful output behavior: results are sorted by cost, multi-material objects are flagged, and hidden geometry is surfaced. It does not describe granularity or thresholds, so this is solid but not rich.
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 compact sentences plus a category tag, front-loaded with the read-only marker and the core metric. Every clause carries information; nothing is padded.
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 zero-parameter read-only tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers what is measured, how results are ordered, and what anomalies are surfaced. Minor gaps remain around scope (whole scene vs selection) and result granularity.
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?
Zero parameters, so there is no parameter semantics burden; baseline 4 applies. The description correctly implies a whole-scene, unfiltered sweep.
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 resource and measurement: per-object draw call and triangle cost, with a clear analytical verb implied by 'breakdown'. It does not name a sibling to differentiate from, so an agent must infer its place against performance_snapshot or geometry_details.
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 '[INSPECT] Read-only' tag implies diagnostic/observation usage and the cost-sorting hints at performance triage, but there is no explicit when-to-use or when-to-prefer-an-alternative guidance versus performance_snapshot or perf_monitor.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.