List current native linked instances and retrieve their revision-bound IDs, source bodies, and exact transforms for CAD scene inspection. Instance geometry stays linked to its source until realized.
List current native linked instances, their revision-bound IDs, source bodies, and exact transforms. Instance geometry remains linked to its source until realized.
| 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 cover the read-only, non-destructive, closed-world safety profile. The description adds meaningful domain behavior beyond that: instance geometry remains linked to its source until realized, which helps an agent understand the lifecycle of the listed entities.
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 sentences, both front-loaded and free of filler. The first sentence establishes what is listed; the second adds the key lifecycle constraint without over-explaining.
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?
The description covers the listing scope, the returned fields, and the linked-until-realized behavior. With no output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to understand the call and its results.
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. The description correctly does not invent parameter behavior and instead focuses on what the parameterless listing returns.
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 specific verb and resource: 'List current native linked instances.' It also names the exact data returned — revision-bound IDs, source bodies, and exact transforms — which distinguishes this listing tool from generic body or region listings.
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 implied by the lifecycle statement that instances remain linked until realized, suggesting inspection before realization. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this versus alternatives like list_bodies, realize_instances, or move_instances.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.