Lists scene materials with their group, assigned object count, and shader per slot, plus optional name filtering to inspect material assignments.
All materials with group, number of assigned objects and the shader per slot.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name_contains | 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 the safety profile: read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and closed-world. The description adds some result context by stating which material attributes are included, but it does not clarify how the optional name filter changes the result set or mention ordering/limits.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded fragment with no filler, so it is efficient and easy to scan. However, it is clipped enough that it omits important usage and filter details, which belongs in other dimensions rather than conciseness.
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 simple read-only list tool with an output schema and safety annotations, the description is adequate about what is returned. It remains incomplete because it omits the optional name filter and does not distinguish material_list from material_get or other material-listing alternatives.
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 single optional name_contains parameter has 0% schema description coverage and is not mentioned in the description at all. The phrase 'All materials' may even imply no filtering, so the agent must infer the filter behavior solely from the property name.
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 clear list operation on materials and names the returned fields: group, assigned object count, and shader per slot. It is clearly distinguishable from mutation siblings, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from material_get or other material read 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?
There is no explicit when-to-use guidance, no alternatives named, and no explanation of when to use material_list versus material_get. The only implied usage is that it lists 'All materials' rather than retrieving one material.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.