Inspect Three.js scene fog settings to read fog type, color, near/far distances, or density. Read-only access helps verify atmospheric effects without changing the scene.
[INSPECT] Read-only. Scene fog: type (Fog/FogExp2), color, near/far or density.
| 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 readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive, and closed-world, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description's 'Read-only' merely restates the annotation; its added value is limited to naming the fog fields returned, which is modest behavioral context.
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, front-loaded with the INSPECT tag and read-only status before the payload description. No wasted words.
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?
There is no output schema, so the description carries the return-value burden and does so by enumerating the fog fields. With zero parameters and annotations covering safety, this is nearly complete; only a routing hint to set_fog is missing.
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 the baseline is 4. The description instead characterizes the returned fog model (Fog vs FogExp2, and near/far for linear vs density for exponential), which is useful but not strictly parameter semantics.
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 ('Read') and resource ('Scene fog') and enumerates the returned fields (type, color, near/far or density), so an agent knows exactly what it gets. It doesn't explicitly name set_fog as the write counterpart, but the INSPECT/read-only framing plus the naming convention makes the read/write split clear.
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 this is a query tool to use when inspecting current fog state, but there is no explicit when-to-use statement or pointer to set_fog as the mutation alternative. Usage 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.