search_3d_guidanceSearch checked-in 3D tool skills and optional semantic guidance to find reusable Blender actions for scene building, arrangement, editing, and validation.
Search checked-in ViperMesh 3D tool skills and optionally the configured semantic guidance store.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | Yes | ||
| source | No | ||
| minSimilarity | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not explain what "checked-in" means operationally, whether the semantic store requires configuration or authentication, what happens when the store is unavailable, or what the result format and pagination behavior are.
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 compact sentence with the core purpose front-loaded and no wasted wording. Its brevity is efficient, though it leaves important semantics unexplained rather than being structurally confusing.
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 four-parameter search tool with no annotations, no output schema, and zero schema description coverage, the description is too thin to be complete. It omits result behavior, source selection details, and parameter meanings that an agent would need to invoke the tool correctly.
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 four parameters, so the description should compensate but mostly does not. It loosely hints at the semantic source option, but never explains query semantics, the meaning of the source enum values, the limit, or minSimilarity.
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 states a specific verb ("Search") and resource ("checked-in ViperMesh 3D tool skills" plus an optional semantic guidance store), so the agent can understand what the tool retrieves. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling get_3d_guidance_document, but the search-oriented framing is reasonably clear.
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 phrase "optionally the configured semantic guidance store" hints that the tool can search two sources, but it gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus get_3d_guidance_document or list_blender_tools. There are no exclusions or conditions for choosing between local and semantic search.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.