Inspect all Three.js scene textures to read their size, format, wrap, and filter settings without modifying the scene.
[INSPECT] Read-only. All textures: size, format, wrap, filter settings.
| 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 the safety profile is fully covered. The description's 'Read-only' merely restates that, though the field list ('size, format, wrap, filter settings') adds some behavioral value about content scope.
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 terse lines, category and read-only flag front-loaded, followed by the returned attributes. Every fragment earns its place with no waste.
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-parameter read tool with annotations covering safety and a description enumerating the returned fields, an agent has enough to call it. No output schema exists, so the field list adequately stands in.
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.
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 (list all textures) plus the attributes returned (size, format, wrap, filter). It is more specific than a bare 'textures' restatement, but it never distinguishes itself from texture_details or texture_preview, which a reader must infer from 'All textures'.
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]' tag implies an inspection intent, but there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite, and no mention of the sibling alternatives (texture_details, texture_preview) that an agent would need to choose correctly.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.