Reads vertex/fragment GLSL source and uniforms from a Three.js material; for NodeMaterial (TSL), use material_details instead.
[INSPECT] Read-only. Vertex/fragment GLSL source and uniforms of a material. NodeMaterial (TSL) has no GLSL — use material_details.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| materialName | No | Material name | |
| materialUuid | No | Material UUID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Input schema / additionalPropertiesRemoved value: -falsev0.4.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the '[INSPECT] Read-only' prefix is largely redundant. The one genuine addition is the behavioral caveat that NodeMaterial/TSL materials return no GLSL, which is useful context beyond the structured fields but not rich.
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?
Three terse fragments, front-loaded with the operation type and the key exclusion. No sentence is wasted; the caveat is placed immediately after the core statement.
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 two-optional-parameter read tool with no output schema, the description states what is returned (GLSL source and uniforms) and flags the NodeMaterial case. It leaves the materialName-vs-materialUuid selection and any pagination/returned-format detail unstated, but nothing critical for correct invocation 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?
Schema description coverage is 100% and both parameters are already documented in the schema, so the description need not repeat them. It implies a single material is targeted but adds no syntax, precedence, or format detail beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies.
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?
Starts with a clear verb+resource: reading vertex/fragment GLSL source and uniforms of a material. It explicitly names the sibling it is not (material_details) and the condition (NodeMaterial/TSL), so an agent can distinguish it from shader_list/material_details without opening schemas.
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?
Provides an explicit exclusion and alternative: NodeMaterial (TSL) has no GLSL, so use material_details instead. Clear usage context, though it doesn't distinguish itself from the closely-named sibling shader_list, leaving a small routing gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.