inspect_projectRead the active Blockbench project’s geometry, bone mapping, textures, and native keyframe summaries to verify model structure before editing or exporting.
Read actual geometry, bone mapping, textures and native keyframe summaries of the active Blockbench project.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ok | Yes | ||
| data | No | ||
| error | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds one useful behavioral nuance — keyframes come back as 'summaries' rather than raw data — but says nothing about size, cost, or how 'actual' geometry differs from a summarized form.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; every noun names a distinct category of returned data.
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 structure needn't be explained, and annotations cover the safety profile. The only gap is the absent routing guidance against get_editor_status, which for a zero-parameter inspection tool is a minor omission.
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; the baseline of 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 specific verb (Read) and enumerates exactly what is returned: geometry, bone mapping, textures, and keyframe summaries of the active Blockbench project. It is clearly distinct from the create_*/generate_* siblings, though it never explicitly contrasts itself with get_editor_status, the closest read-only alternative.
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 statement of when to call this versus get_editor_status or the generators. The only usage signal is the implicit scope, 'active Blockbench project', leaving the agent to infer that this should be run before rigging or animating.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.