Inspect one Three.js texture to read its UUID, name, and detailed properties in a read-only view; debug texture settings and verify scene assets.
[INSPECT] Read-only. Detailed info about one texture.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | Texture name | |
| uuid | No | Texture 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=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description's 'Read-only' merely restates the annotation and adds no new behavioral context (no mention of what is returned or how name/uuid resolve).
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?
Very short and front-loaded with the [INSPECT] tag and read-only marker. It earns its few words, though the bracketed tag is redundant with the annotations.
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 simple read tool with full schema coverage, full annotations, and no output schema, the description is minimally sufficient. It leaves open how to choose between the two optional identifiers, which an agent would need when only one is known.
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% ('Texture name' / 'Texture UUID'), so the schema already documents both parameters; baseline 3 applies. The description adds nothing about how the two optional identifiers interact or which takes precedence.
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 clear verb+resource: retrieve detailed info about a single texture. This distinguishes it from texture_list (enumerate) and texture_preview (visual preview) implicitly, though it never names a sibling explicitly to sharpen the boundary.
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?
No when-to-use guidance and no exclusions. It never tells the agent when to reach for this over texture_list or texture_preview, nor whether it requires an already-known texture name/uuid. Usage is only implied by the tool name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.