Read a character's full native joint hierarchy, rig controls, bindings, constraint references, and shared tracks by UUID to inspect Cascadeur rig structure.
Read full native joint hierarchy, rig controls, bindings, constraint references and shared tracks by character UUID.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| 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 this is a non-destructive, read-only, closed-world operation. The description adds useful scope by listing what the read returns, but it does not disclose pagination, error behavior, or output format details beyond that list.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no redundant wording. Every phrase earns its place by specifying the read scope and the identifying input.
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 one-parameter read tool with no output schema and annotations covering safety, the description is nearly complete: it states what is read and by what identifier. It falls short only in not clarifying when this skeleton read is preferable to related sibling tools.
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%, so the description must carry the semantic burden. It does identify the single parameter as a character UUID, which maps clearly to character_id, but it adds little beyond what the schema's UUID pattern already implies.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Read', and names the exact resource returned: full native joint hierarchy, rig controls, bindings, constraint references, and shared tracks. It is clearly distinguishable from sibling tools such as get_character_pose or get_rig_semantics because it targets the complete skeleton data by character UUID.
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 description provides no explicit guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives. It implies usage through the verb and resource, but it does not say when-not to use it or point to siblings like get_rig_semantics or get_character_pose for related needs.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.