Checks the 3ds Max bridge and reports build, loaded scene, units, timeline, and renderer so you can verify connectivity and interpret other tool values.
Check the bridge and report 3ds Max build, scene, units, timeline, renderer.
Call this first in a session: it tells you whether Max is reachable, which scene is loaded, and what units the numbers in every other tool mean.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.5Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the behavioral burden and does well: it discloses that this checks bridge reachability and reports build, scene, units, timeline, and renderer. It does not explicitly discuss error behavior or failure modes, but for a parameterless status tool the operational behavior is largely clear.
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?
Two short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and followed by the session-level usage rationale. No filler or repetition.
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 parameterless, no-output-schema status tool, the description covers what is checked, what is returned, and why it matters before other calls. Nothing essential for correct invocation is missing.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there are no parameter semantics to explain. Baseline for zero-parameter tools applies.
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 operation (check the bridge) and enumerates the reported resources: 3ds Max build, scene, units, timeline, and renderer. This clearly distinguishes a status/diagnostic tool from scene-query or mutation siblings like max_scene_summary or max_set_property.
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?
Explicitly says 'Call this first in a session' and explains why: to determine whether Max is reachable, which scene is loaded, and what units mean for other tools. It does not name alternatives or when-not-to-use cases, but the first-call guidance is clear and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.