mcp-for-cascadeur

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

fbx_import

Destructive

Imports FBX files into the native Cascadeur scene, replacing matching animation data when needed. Create a checkpoint first to protect existing work.

Instructions

Import FBX into the native scene; animation import replaces matching data. Checkpoint first.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "path": "<path>"
    },
    "name": "fbx_import"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`mode`	No
`path`	Yes
`take`	No

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.0Nov 7, 2026

TDQS

B3.1/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already flag destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, so the description's job is to add specifics. It does add that animation imports replace matching data and that a checkpoint should precede the call, but it does not explain how scene/model/add_model modes behave (merge vs replace) or whether existing objects survive, which is what an agent actually needs given the destructive flag.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two compact clauses, front-loaded with the action and followed by the risk warning, with no filler. The telegraphic "Checkpoint first" is efficient but slightly cryptic as a standalone sentence.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness2/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

A destructive, three-parameter tool with no output schema and zero schema description coverage needs far more explanation than this. The mode enum semantics and take parameter are undocumented anywhere, so an agent cannot know which mode is safe or how to target a specific take.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters2/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry parameter meaning, but it only obliquely references one enum value ("animation import"). The four-valued mode enum, the take index (minimum -1), and the path format are all left entirely unexplained.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Import FBX") plus the target ("native scene"), and hints at the animation-import variant. It is distinguishable from the sibling fbx_export, though it does not describe what the other import modes (model, add_model) do.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines3/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives one actionable directive, "Checkpoint first," which points at checkpoint_create as a prerequisite, and implicitly contextualizes animation import as overwriting. It offers no guidance on which mode to choose or when a plain scene import is preferred over add_model/model.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server