Exports the current project mesh and any Auto UV results to a chosen path inside SP_MCP_EXPORT_ROOTS so you can hand off baked assets for downstream use.
Export the project mesh, with any Auto UV result, inside SP_MCP_EXPORT_ROOTS.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| overwrite | No | ||
| output_path | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It does disclose a real behavioral constraint not present in the schema — the output path is sandboxed to SP_MCP_EXPORT_ROOTS — which is genuinely useful. However, it says nothing about what happens when the file already exists, what the Auto UV inclusion implies for the written asset, or any failure modes, leaving the mutation semantics largely unexplained.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with no filler; the verb and resource come first and the path constraint follows. It is arguably too terse rather than too long, but nothing is wasted.
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?
The output schema means return values need not be explained, and the description covers purpose plus the path sandbox. With no annotations and zero schema coverage, the missing piece is overwrite/failure behavior for a write tool, which is a meaningful gap for correct invocation.
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% for two parameters. The description partially compensates for output_path by revealing the export-root restriction, but says nothing about 'overwrite' — whether omission means the call fails on an existing file or silently skips — leaving one of two parameters entirely undocumented.
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 ('Export') and resource ('the project mesh'), and adds the notable detail that any Auto UV result is included. It distinguishes itself from the sibling export_textures/export_with_profile tools by naming the mesh as the exported artifact, though it never explicitly contrasts with them.
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?
Usage is only implied: the export must land inside SP_MCP_EXPORT_ROOTS. There is no statement of when to prefer this over export_textures or export_with_profile, nor any prerequisite (e.g. project open, mesh loaded). The constraint hints at usage but does not guide tool selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.