Finds scene objects in Marmoset Toolbag 5 by name, matching case-insensitive substrings or exact names, with an optional result limit.
Objects whose name contains name (case-insensitive), or equals it with exact.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| exact | No | ||
| limit | 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 this as a safe, read-only, idempotent, non-destructive operation. The description adds useful matching-behavior context (case-insensitive substring search, exact-match toggle), but it does not mention the `limit` default or whether results are truncated, which is relevant behavior for a search tool.
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 sentence with no wasted wording. It immediately communicates the core filtering behavior and the exact-match switch.
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 search tool with rich annotations and an output schema, the description covers the essential matching semantics. The only meaningful gap is the unexplained `limit` parameter, but return values are covered by the output schema and safety is covered by annotations.
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 for parameter meaning. It explains `name` matching and how `exact` changes it to equality, but it does not explain the `limit` parameter or its default of 100, leaving one of three parameters undocumented.
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 specifies the resource (objects) and matching behavior: case-insensitive substring match by name, or exact match when `exact` is true. It is clear enough to distinguish this from listing all objects, though it does not explicitly name a sibling alternative like `scene_list_objects`.
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 description only states the matching semantics; it does not say when to use this tool versus `scene_list_objects`, `object_get`, or `selection_get`. There are no exclusions or prerequisites, so the agent must infer when this name-based search is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.