Runs geometric verification lanes on a scene and returns a verdict plus obligations, using the latest render for compile checks or graph-only lanes if none exists.
Run the geometric verification lanes on a scene and return a verdict + obligations. Uses the latest render (if any) for the compile lane; otherwise runs graph-only lanes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scene_id | No | ||
| project_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden and discloses some useful context: it uses the latest render if present and otherwise runs graph-only lanes, and it returns verdicts and obligations. However, it does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects it may have, or what permissions are required.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the primary action and followed by the key conditional behavior. Every sentence contributes relevant information without unnecessary repetition.
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?
An output schema exists, so return-value explanation is less critical, and the description covers the core lane behavior. But for a tool with no annotations and two undocumented optional parameters, the description leaves important gaps around parameter usage, permissions, and side effects.
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?
Both parameters have 0% schema description coverage, so the description must compensate. It mentions a scene but never explains the roles of scene_id or project_id, their optionality, or what happens when either is omitted.
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 states a specific verb and resource: it runs geometric verification lanes on a scene and returns a verdict plus obligations. It is clearly distinct from project/environment siblings, though it does not explicitly name alternatives. The domain jargon is meaningful but slightly opaque.
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 description explains what the tool does internally but gives no guidance on when to use it versus inspect_project, inspect_environment, or render_scene. It also provides no exclusions or prerequisites for choosing this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.