Get the Marmoset Toolbag output path for a named bake map such as Normals, Ambient Occlusion, or Height, optionally for a texture set or UDIM tile.
Toolbag's own output path for a map by display name ('Normals', 'Ambient Occlusion', 'Height'), optionally for a texture set name or UDIM tile ('1001').
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| baker | No | ||
| map_name | Yes | ||
| tile_suffix | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive/closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds that the lookup is keyed on display name and can be scoped by texture set or UDIM tile, but does not say whether the returned path exists on disk, whether it requires an existing bake, or whether it is absolute.
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 that identifies the tool's function before the optional scoping details. The parenthetical example list is dense but earns its place by illustrating valid map names.
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 an output schema present, the return value needn't be described, and read-only annotations cover safety. However, for a 3-parameter tool at 0% schema coverage, the description leaves the 'baker' selector and a mismatched 'texture set' concept unresolved, so it is not fully self-sufficient.
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 carry the params. It explains map_name well with concrete examples and gestures at the UDIM tile ('1001'), but 'texture set name' does not correspond to any parameter in the schema, and the 'baker' parameter is never mentioned at all — leaving the agent guessing which baker instance is targeted.
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 resource and output: the Toolbag-internal output path for a given map display name, with example values ('Normals', 'Ambient Occlusion', 'Height'). An agent can distinguish this from baker_get/baker_list, though the verb ('returns/computes') is only implied by 'output path'.
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 'Toolbag's own output path' implies this should be used instead of hand-constructing a path, which is useful implied guidance. But there is no explicit when-to-use, no prerequisite (e.g. must the baker be configured or baked first), and no mention of any alternative tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.