Summarizes the current Cascadeur scene, including file path, frame range, object counts, selection, rig and animation behaviors, and license flags for quick inspection.
Summarize the current scene: name/path, frames, object counts by type, selection, rig/animation behaviours, license flags.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_objects | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the return content areas (frames, counts, selection, rig/animation, license), which is valuable, but says nothing about cost, permissions, truncation, or how large scenes are handled.
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?
A single dense sentence with the resource stated first and the payload contents front-loaded. No filler.
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?
With no output schema and no annotations, the description does well to enumerate the returned sections, but it leaves the one parameter and any behavioral bounds (scene size limits, response size) unexplained, which matters for a scene-wide scan tool.
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% and the single parameter max_objects is never mentioned in the description. Whether it caps the object list, truncates counts, or has any default is completely undocumented.
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?
Specific verb (summarize) plus resource (current scene) with an enumerated content list: name/path, frames, object counts, selection, rig/animation, license flags. It is clearly a whole-scene overview, which implicitly separates it from get_object_info, but no sibling is named explicitly.
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 explicit when-to-use, when-not, or alternative named. An agent must infer from 'summarize the current scene' that this is the broad orientation call versus get_object_info or get_log — the description never states that routing.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.