Exports a Marmoset Toolbag material to a .tbmat file using its name and target path, so you can save or share material assets.
Export a material to a .tbmat file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| path | 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 disclose readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the target file format, but omits whether an existing file at 'path' is overwritten and whether a file must pre-exist for import/export symmetry.
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 waste. Brevity is appropriate for a simple two-parameter tool, though it tips into under-specification.
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 values need not be explained. However, for a file-writing tool with 0% schema coverage, the missing overwrite/error behavior and parameter meanings leave an agent guessing on edge cases.
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 carries the full burden. 'Export a material to a .tbmat file' loosely implies name=material and path=destination, but neither parameter is named or explained, and no format/path convention is given.
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 (export) and resource (material) plus the output format (.tbmat), so an agent can distinguish it from material_import or scene_export. It stops short of explicitly naming a sibling alternative, but the purpose is unambiguous.
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 statement of when to use this versus material_import or scene_export, no prerequisites, and no exclusions. An agent must infer usage purely from the verb.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.