Read every character joint local and global transform plus all native Point targets in one call. The returned pose is writable by the pose-setting tool.
Read every character joint local/global transform plus all native Point targets in ONE call. Returned pose is writable by set_character_pose.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frame | Yes | ||
| character_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a genuinely useful behavioral guarantee beyond the annotations: the returned data shape is accepted by set_character_pose, which prevents an agent from inventing a conversion step. It omits any note on return size or frame-range semantics.
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, front-loaded with the resource and scope, followed by the actionable round-trip fact. No filler or restated schema content.
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 read-only, two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description conveys what comes back (all joint local/global transforms and Point targets) and how it can be reused. Only the meaning of the 'frame' parameter and any size/format characteristics of the payload are left unaddressed.
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% and neither parameter is explained in the description. Nothing says what 'frame' means (frame index vs. time), what the 0-120 bound represents, or that character_id is a UUID, so the description does not compensate for the schema gap.
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 (read) and resource (every character joint local/global transform plus all native Point targets), and the 'in ONE call' phrasing distinguishes this batch read from single-target siblings like get_local_transform or get_transform. It also names its write counterpart, set_character_pose, pinning down its role in the API.
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 round-trip statement ('Returned pose is writable by set_character_pose') tells the agent exactly when this tool pairs with a mutation, and the batch framing implies use over get_local_transform/get_global_transform when the whole pose is needed. There is no explicit exclusion clause, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.