Inspect morph targets on Three.js meshes to read target names and current influences, enabling debugging of blend shapes and animation states.
[INSPECT] Read-only. Meshes with morph targets: target names and current influences.
| 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds useful context about the payload (target names and current influences) but nothing about pagination, empty-result behavior, or scenes with no morph targets.
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, front-loaded with the inspection tag and the read-only constraint, followed by the resource and payload. Every fragment carries information; no filler.
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, so the description must convey the return value, and it does so at a high level ('target names and current influences'). For a zero-parameter, read-only inspection tool this is nearly sufficient, though it doesn't describe how the list is scoped or ordered across multiple meshes.
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 (empty schema), so there is nothing for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; it correctly does not invent parameter detail where none exists.
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/list) and resource (meshes with morph targets) plus the returned data (target names and current influences). This cleanly distinguishes it from the write-oriented sibling set_morph_target, which is not named explicitly but is clearly implied by the read-only framing.
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 signals the general usage context and implicitly contrasts with the mutation sibling set_morph_target, but it never states when to use this over alternatives or any prerequisite. Usage is implied rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.