Lists the native Plasticity group hierarchy, active group, direct body, linked-instance and reference-mesh members, visibility, and lock state for scene inspection.
List the current native Plasticity group hierarchy, active group, direct body, linked-instance, and reference-mesh members, visibility, and lock state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish the safe, read-only, non-destructive, non-open-world profile, so the bar is lower. The description still adds real value by enumerating the behavioral content of the response (hierarchy, active group, membership across bodies/instances/reference meshes, visibility, lock state), which is the only place that information appears since there is no output schema.
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 preamble or filler. The long enumeration is justified because each item is a distinct returned facet rather than padding, and the schema has no output block to carry them.
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?
With no input parameters and no output schema, the description is the sole source of truth for what this tool yields, and it covers all the returned categories. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.
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 per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing in the schema needing description, and nothing misleading is claimed about inputs.
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?
A specific verb (List) on a specific resource (native Plasticity group hierarchy) with the exact facets returned: active group, direct body/linked-instance/reference-mesh members, visibility, and lock state. This is clearly distinguishable from sibling readers such as plasticity_list_bodies, plasticity_list_regions, and plasticity_list_instances.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the read-only way to inspect group structure, but the description never states when to prefer it over plasticity_list_bodies/plasticity_list_instances or any prerequisite (e.g. needing a document open). No explicit when-not guidance or alternatives are named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.