Exports Substance Painter textures to an allowed output directory using a preset, then verifies every generated file so finished assets are complete.
Export textures inside SP_MCP_EXPORT_ROOTS and verify every output file.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| preset | Yes | ||
| bit_depth | No | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| size_log2 | No | ||
| file_format | No | ||
| texture_sets | No | ||
| output_directory | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose two genuinely useful traits: output is confined to SP_MCP_EXPORT_ROOTS and each written file is verified. It omits overwrite semantics (despite an overwrite parameter defaulting to false), failure/partial-write behavior, and permission requirements for a mutating tool.
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 zero filler; the safety boundary and verification guarantee are stated up front. Nothing is redundant.
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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained. But for a 7-parameter mutation tool with no annotations and no parameter documentation, the description leaves too much unspecified — particularly the required preset vocabulary and the overwrite/bit-depth behaviors that materially change the result.
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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It never mentions preset, output_directory, overwrite, bit_depth, size_log2, file_format, or texture_sets, leaving the agent to guess valid values and defaults from bare titles.
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 and resource ("Export textures") plus a distinctive behavior ("verify every output file"), which an agent can grasp immediately. It does not, however, distinguish itself from siblings like plan_texture_export or export_with_profile, so the agent cannot tell from the description alone which export path to take.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of the obvious alternatives (plan_texture_export, export_with_profile, plan_profile_export). The only implied constraint is the SP_MCP_EXPORT_ROOTS boundary, which is a limitation rather than routing advice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.