Insert a Smart Material into a Substance Painter layer stack at the top, inside a parent, or beside a reference layer to build or adjust material setups.
Insert a Smart Material at the top, inside parent_uid, or relative to reference_uid.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| position | No | top | |
| parent_uid | No | ||
| texture_set | No | ||
| resource_url | Yes | ||
| reference_uid | No |
| 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. It only states that an insert occurs and says nothing about permissions, whether existing content is overwritten, what side effects occur, or how positioning affects the layer tree.
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?
The definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, and the verb is placed first. It is efficient, though the terseness contributes to under-specification elsewhere.
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 tool has six parameters, no annotations, and no schema descriptions, yet the description covers only positioning. Output schema existence reduces the need to explain return values, but the description still leaves required inputs and mutation behavior undocumented.
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 explain all six parameters. It only clarifies parent_uid, reference_uid, and the 'top' position; the required resource_url, plus name and texture_set, are left unexplained.
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 uses a clear verb and resource, 'Insert a Smart Material,' and adds positioning context with 'at the top, inside parent_uid, or relative to reference_uid.' It does not explicitly distinguish this tool from any sibling, but the purpose itself is specific and unambiguous.
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?
The description implies three insertion modes (top, inside parent_uid, relative to reference_uid), which gives some invocation guidance. However, it never states when to choose this tool over alternatives such as import_project_resource, import_shelf_resource, or insert_content_effect, and it omits prerequisites entirely.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.