Lists currently selected 3ds Max objects with name, class, layer, and position; enable detail to include bounding boxes, transforms, parents, materials, and user properties.
List the currently selected objects (name, class, layer, position; with detail=True also bbox, transform, parent, material, user properties).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| detail | 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; it does disclose that this is a non-mutating listing and that detail=True expands the returned fields (bbox, transform, parent, material, user properties). It omits behavior such as what happens when nothing is selected or whether results are capped/truncated by limit.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the action and resource, with the detail-mode fields cleanly bracketed. The parenthetical field list is dense but every item is informative.
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 needn't be explained, and the description covers the detail mode well. The unexplained 'limit' parameter and the absence of any differentiation from max_query_objects leave gaps for a tool in a crowded sibling set.
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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate: it explains 'detail' well by enumerating the extra fields, but says nothing about 'limit' (default 200), leaving the agent to guess whether it truncates results or is ignored.
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 ('List') and resource ('currently selected objects') plus the exact fields returned. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling max_query_objects, which is the main alternative for listing objects.
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?
There is no guidance on when to use this versus max_query_objects (which presumably queries arbitrary objects rather than the live selection), nor any mention of prerequisites such as the selection being non-empty. Usage must be inferred from the name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.