Discovers and validates Cascy v1 role groups, Point UUIDs, rig bindings, and topology fingerprints for a character rig, rejecting ambiguous names or unsupported topology.
Discover and validate Cascy v1 role groups, native Point UUIDs, rig bindings and topology fingerprint. Driven joints are read-only. Refuses ambiguous names or unsupported topology.
| 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 readOnly/non-destructive, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value beyond them by disclosing failure behavior (refuses ambiguous names or unsupported topology) and a domain constraint (driven joints are read-only).
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 dense sentences, front-loaded with capability then constraints; nothing is padded. Jargon like 'Cascy v1' and 'topology fingerprint' is unexplained but does not waste space.
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?
It names the categories of information returned, which partially compensates for the missing output schema, and covers error/refusal behavior. However it never ties the operation to character_id or explains what the 'validation' result looks like.
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 the single required character_id parameter is never mentioned in the description, so no semantics, scope, or format guidance is added. The parameter is only self-explanatory from its name.
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 pair (discover/validate) and concrete resources: role groups, native Point UUIDs, rig bindings, topology fingerprint. The domain is clearly distinct from pose/transform siblings, though no sibling is named for contrast.
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?
No guidance on when to call this versus get_semantic_pose, get_character_skeleton or other discovery tools. An agent must infer that this is a prerequisite lookup step rather than a pose operation.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.