Retrieves hierarchical joint specifications, listing each joint's name, parent part, and child part for building character animations.
Hierarchical joint specs: name, parent part, child part.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. The 'get' prefix and the spec-oriented wording imply a read-only retrieval, but the description does not explicitly state that there are no side effects or mention any other behavioral constraints.
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 description is a single front-loaded phrase with no wasted words. It communicates the core resource and key attributes compactly.
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?
For a zero-parameter getter with an output schema, the description is technically sufficient: an agent can invoke the tool without arguments and understand the general shape of the result. However, it does not provide enough surrounding context to distinguish when this tool should be chosen over related joint or part tools.
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?
The tool has zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and the description is not required to explain parameter semantics. It still adds useful context by naming the output fields (name, parent part, child part), which reinforces what the returned specs contain.
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 clearly identifies the resource (joints) and the content (hierarchical specs with name, parent part, child part), so the purpose is understandable. It does not explicitly differentiate get_joints from siblings like get_joint_docs or get_part_ids, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as get_joint_docs or get_part_ids. No usage context, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.