Inspect a layer's Mesh/UVTile geometry mask and list available elements, so you can verify mask coverage and choose elements before editing.
Inspect a layer's Mesh/UVTile geometry mask and available elements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| uid | 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 behavioral burden. Beyond 'inspect' hinting at a read operation, it says nothing about permissions, side effects, or what 'available elements' means for a non-authored mask; an output schema exists but behavioral context is still missing.
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 efficient sentence that front-loads the verb and resource with no wasted words. Appropriately sized for a simple one-parameter read tool.
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 presence of an output schema means return values need not be explained, but the absent annotations and undocumented uid leave the definition thin for a tool whose data model ('Mesh/UVTile geometry mask') is non-obvious. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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 coverage is 0% and the sole 'uid' parameter is documented only as an integer with no description. The phrase 'a layer's' weakly implies uid identifies a layer, but the description adds no format, source, or lookup guidance to compensate for the empty schema.
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 ('Inspect') and resource ('a layer's Mesh/UVTile geometry mask and available elements'), which clearly distinguishes it from the sibling set_geometry_mask by its read/inspect orientation. The lack of an explicit sibling callout keeps it from a 5.
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 by the verb 'Inspect' contrasted against the write-oriented sibling 'set_geometry_mask'; there is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance. An agent can infer the read-vs-write split but must do the work itself.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.