Create a new Marmoset Toolbag material using default shaders by providing a name, enabling scene setup through MCP automation.
Create a material with Toolbag's default shaders.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes |
| 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 readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the mutation and safety profile is covered. The description adds one useful behavioral fact — the new material comes pre-populated with default shaders rather than being empty — but says nothing about whether the material is auto-selected, assigned to any object, or how name collisions 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 front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource lead immediately. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, which is under-specification rather than a structural flaw.
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 a one-parameter creation tool with annotations and an output schema, the description covers the basic action and the initial state of the material, but leaves open the post-creation side effects (selection, assignment, naming rules) that an agent would want before calling it.
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 sole parameter, 'name', appears with only its title. The description does not clarify whether the name must be unique, whether it can be omitted or auto-generated, or what naming constraints exist, so it fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 and resource ('Create a material') and adds the distinguishing detail that the material is initialized with Toolbag's default shaders. It does not explicitly contrast with siblings like material_duplicate or material_import, which is why it falls short of a 5.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus material_duplicate (copy an existing material) or material_import (bring in an external material), both of which are viable alternatives for getting a material into the scene. The agent must infer the choice from the sibling names alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.