Inspect the Three.js object selected in the overlay, reading its materials, geometry, transforms, textures, uniforms, and shadows without modifying the scene.
[INSPECT] Read-only. Everything about the object the user selected in the overlay: materials, geometry, transforms, textures, uniforms, shadows.
| 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, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so 'Read-only.' repeats structured data rather than adding to it. The description does add scope value by listing the categories of data returned, but it says nothing about behavior when no object is selected or what happens with multi-selection.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the [INSPECT]/read-only marker and immediately followed by the scope of returned data. The leading 'Read-only.' is mildly redundant with annotations, but everything else earns its place.
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?
With zero parameters and rich annotations, the main remaining uncertainty is what is returned and how a missing selection is handled; the description covers the former well and the latter not at all. An output schema is absent, so the inline field enumeration does real work.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. The field list does helpfully signal what the empty-argument call will return.
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 the resource precisely: the object currently selected in the overlay, and enumerates the data returned (materials, geometry, transforms, textures, uniforms, shadows). The verb is implicit rather than explicit, and it never distinguishes itself from siblings like object_details, click_inspect, or raycast, which read similar object data.
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?
Usage is only implied by the phrase 'the object the user selected in the overlay' and the [INSPECT] tag; there is no explicit when-to-use, when-not-to-use, or pointer to object_details for the non-overlay case. An agent must infer that this is the selection-scoped variant of object inspection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.