Check Marvelous Designer Python API signatures, docstrings, and overloads at runtime without executing functions. Safely inspect modules or specific functions without altering the 3D scene.
Runtime availability, callable/type/signature, docstring and pybind overloads without invoking functions. Does not mutate the MD scene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| module | Yes | ||
| function | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Since no annotations are provided, the description carries the full behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly states the tool does not invoke functions and does not mutate the MD scene, which is essential safety-relevant behavior. It does not describe return format or error behavior, but the non-invocation guarantee is strong and specific.
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?
Two sentences, tightly packed with the core purpose and a safety guarantee. There is no filler or repetition of the schema, and the most important non-mutation behavior is stated at the end rather than buried.
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?
For an introspection tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description omits critical invocation details: what module names/function formats are accepted, how results are returned, and what happens when an item is unavailable. An agent could call it with the wrong module string and have no guidance from the description.
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 description does not explain how 'module' or 'function' should be specified. The schema provides only names, types, and a default; it leaves unclear whether module is a dotted path, a registered alias, or something like 'md'. The description should have compensated but did not.
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 ('inspect') and resource (MD API), and enumerates the exact kinds of information returned: runtime availability, callable/type/signature, docstring, and pybind overloads. It also explicitly disclaims invocation, which distinguishes it from the sibling md_api and other executing tools.
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 phrase 'without invoking functions' and 'Does not mutate' strongly imply this is the safe, read-only introspection choice. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or state when an agent should choose inspect_md_api over md_api, execute_python, or documentation lookup tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.