get_3d_guidance_documentReads an approved Markdown reference from the checked-in ViperMesh agent skill to provide exact Blender 3D guidance for a requested task.
Read one approved Markdown reference from the checked-in ViperMesh agent skill.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| filename | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full burden. 'Read' plus 'approved' and 'checked-in' communicates that this is a safe, read-only lookup against a curated bundle rather than arbitrary filesystem access. It does not disclose behavior on an unknown filename, path handling, or the shape/size of the returned document.
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?
One short, front-loaded sentence with no filler; the resource and scope are established immediately. It is arguably too terse for the disclosure burden it carries, 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?
For a simple single-parameter lookup with no output schema and no annotations, the definition covers what the tool fetches but not what comes back (raw Markdown text) or how failures surface. An agent could call it, but could not predict the response or error handling.
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 single 'filename' parameter has zero schema description coverage, so the schema supplies only a 1-255 character string constraint. The description implies it names a Markdown reference in the skill bundle, but adds no format guidance (extension, relative path, case sensitivity) or examples to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 concrete verb and resource: 'Read one approved Markdown reference from the checked-in ViperMesh agent skill.' That is specific enough to distinguish it from siblings like call_blender_tool or run_blender_scene_stage. It stops short of naming its natural counterpart, search_3d_guidance, so sibling differentiation is only implicit.
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: 'one approved Markdown reference' suggests retrieval of a specific already-known document, as opposed to searching. It never says when to prefer this over search_3d_guidance, nor what to do when the filename is unknown, so the agent must infer the search-then-read workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.