shape_get_treeGet the current Shape Studio feature tree—nodes, params, roots, and bounding boxes—before editing. Use it to see what exists and prevent conflicts.
Shape Studio: get the current feature tree (nodes, params, roots, bounding boxes). Call this to see what exists before editing.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v4.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by disclosing the shape of the returned data, which matters because no output schema exists.
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 tight sentences with the resource and return contents front-loaded, followed by the usage cue. No redundancy or filler.
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 output schema, the description's enumeration of return contents (nodes, params, roots, bounding boxes) fills the gap adequately for a zero-parameter read tool. Minor omission: nothing about scale/pagination or whether it reflects unsaved state.
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 the schema has nothing to convey and the baseline is 4. The description correctly implies a no-argument, whole-document read.
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 verb (get) and resource (the current feature tree) and enumerates what the tree contains (nodes, params, roots, bounding boxes). This distinguishes it from the many shape_* mutators in the sibling list, though it doesn't name any sibling explicitly.
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?
"Call this to see what exists before editing" gives a clear trigger condition tied to the editing workflows in the sibling set. It stops short of stating exclusions (e.g., it is not the tool for querying a single node's properties), but the context is unambiguous.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.