Inspect Three.js scene background, environment map (IBL), background blurriness/intensity, and color management to verify lighting and render settings.
[INSPECT] Read-only. Scene background, environment map (IBL), backgroundBlurriness/Intensity, color management.
| 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, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered structurally. The description adds scope by listing the background, environment map, blurriness/intensity, and color-management aspects, but it does not describe return format or other behavioral details beyond that.
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?
The description is two short lines with no wasted text. The read-only constraint is front-loaded via the '[INSPECT] Read-only' tag, followed immediately by the covered inspection domains.
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 parameterless, read-only inspection tool, the description lists the relevant scene background and color-management areas an agent would need. With no output schema, it could say more about the return shape, but it is sufficient for an inspector of this scope.
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 are no parameter semantics for the description to explain. The baseline for a parameterless tool is 4, and nothing in the description misleads about inputs.
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?
The description names the inspected resource and its covered aspects: scene background, environment map (IBL), backgroundBlurriness/Intensity, and color management. It is clearly a read-only inspector, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as env_map_details or renderer_info.
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 read operation, but the description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus env_map_details, renderer_info, or other inspection tools. It also states no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.