Reads explicit objects or all real joints under a root at a frame, returning parent links and local/global transforms in one call without moving the playhead.
Read an explicit object list (Phase 2) OR all real Joints under root (Phase 3), with parents and local/global transforms. One round-trip; does not move playhead.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| root | No | ||
| frame | Yes | ||
| objects | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond those annotations: it is a single round-trip and explicitly does not move the playhead, which is important for an animation-tool read operation.
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, front-loaded with the core operation and followed by key behavioral constraints. There is no filler, and the most important information for selecting the tool comes first.
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 three-parameter read tool with no output schema and 0% schema description coverage, the description covers the two main modes and the no-playhead behavior. It remains incomplete because the required frame parameter is unexplained and return-value details are only partially described.
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 parameter meaning. It maps 'objects' to an explicit object list and 'root' to all joints under a root, but the required 'frame' parameter is never explained, and no format or constraint details are added for any parameter.
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 read operation ('Read an explicit object list ... OR all real Joints under root') and names the returned content ('parents and local/global transforms'). It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_character_pose, get_semantic_pose, get_hand_pose, or get_transform.
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?
It describes two input modes ('explicit object list' vs 'all real Joints under root'), which implies when each parameter set is appropriate. But it gives no explicit when-to-use guidance against alternative pose/transform retrieval tools, and no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.