Generate a standalone 3D HTML viewer from a YAML manifest to explore BIM models with orbit controls, X-ray, section cuts, and layer management.
Generate a standalone, zero-dependency interactive 3D HTML web viewer with OrbitControls, X-Ray, Section Cut, and Layer Explorer.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| manifest_yaml | Yes | ||
| output_html_path | Yes |
| 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 provided, so the description carries the full burden. It usefully discloses the output artifact's nature (standalone, zero-dependency, interactive), but says nothing about writing/overwriting the file at output_html_path, failure modes, or auth needs.
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 tight sentence with the capability front-loaded and feature list following. No waste, though it is arguably too terse given the gaps 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, and the feature list covers what the generated viewer contains. However, with 0% parameter coverage and no annotations, the description leaves the manifest input contract and file-writing behavior unexplained.
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 compensate and does not: neither manifest_yaml's expected format/source nor output_html_path's path semantics (absolute? overwrite?) are explained. Only the bare parameter names in the schema give any clue.
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 (generate) and resource (standalone interactive 3D HTML viewer) and enumerates the delivered features (OrbitControls, X-Ray, Section Cut, Layer Explorer). It is clearly distinct from validate/qto/cost/compile siblings, though it never explicitly says so.
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?
No guidance on when to use this versus the sibling tools, nor prerequisites such as whether the manifest must first pass debim_validate. The agent must infer that a validated manifest is the expected input.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.