Inspect Three.js EffectComposer passes, including render passes, shader passes, and effects such as bloom and SSAO, to review post-processing setup.
[INSPECT] Read-only. EffectComposer passes: render passes, shader passes, effects (bloom, SSAO, …).
| 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, and destructiveHint=false, so the 'Read-only' text is largely redundant. The description does add the scope of what is returned (passes, shader passes, effects), which is genuinely beyond the annotations, but says nothing about ordering, return shape, or depth of detail.
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?
Extremely tight at two short lines, with the [INSPECT] tag front-loaded so the agent can classify the tool immediately. The 'Read-only' phrase slightly duplicates the annotation, but it costs almost nothing.
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-param, read-only list tool with no output schema, the description gives enough — what the list contains and that it is safe to call. It does not describe the return structure, but with no output schema and a trivial interface this is a small gap.
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. No param-level explanation is needed or missing.
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?
Names the resource (EffectComposer) and enumerates what it contains — render passes, shader passes, effects such as bloom and SSAO — so the agent knows exactly what is being listed. The [INSPECT] tag and 'Read-only' prefix distinguish it from set_postprocessing, though the sibling is not named explicitly.
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' marker implies this is for inspection of the post-processing stack, which is useful routing context. However, it does not state when to prefer this over sibling inspectors (e.g. shader_list, material_list) or mention set_postprocessing as the mutation counterpart.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.