Executes MAXScript in a live 3ds Max session and returns the last expression's value, with optional undo wrapping for scene changes.
Execute MAXScript inside Max and return the value of the last expression. (format/print output goes to Max's Listener window; return values instead.) undo=True wraps the code in an undo record.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | ||
| undo | No | ||
| timeout | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does real work: it discloses that format/print output goes to Max's Listener rather than being captured, that the last expression's value is what returns, and that undo=True wraps execution in an undo record. The only undisclosed behavior is what timeout actually does when exceeded.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and return behavior, with the output-redirection caveat and undo semantics following. No filler; only the parenthetical phrasing is slightly awkward.
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 values need not be explained, and the Listener caveat is a valuable addition. However, for an arbitrary-code-execution tool with no annotations, the missing timeout semantics and the absent differentiation from max_run_python leave meaningful gaps.
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 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the effect of `undo` well, but says nothing about the `timeout` parameter (units, default, behavior on expiry) and adds only indirect meaning for `code`. Two of three parameters remain underspecified.
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 specific verb and resource: execute MAXScript inside Max, and adds that the last expression's value is returned. It implicitly distinguishes itself from max_run_python by naming the language, but never explicitly says so.
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?
Usage is only implied by the language ('MAXScript'), with no explicit when-to-use or when-not guidance. The most important routing decision, MAXScript here versus Python via max_run_python, is left entirely to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.