Execute up to 100 typed SketchUp model mutations as one atomic undo step, with Ruby execution, saving, and nested batches excluded.
Run 1–100 typed model mutations in a single atomic undo operation. Ruby, save, undo, and nested batches excluded.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| commands | Yes | ||
| model_id | No | ||
| active_path | No | ||
| operation_name | No | MCP batch |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Input schema / properties / active_pathAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 32,
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / model_idAdded value: +{
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already disclose destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false and readOnlyHint=false, and the description adds genuinely non-obvious behavior: the whole batch is a single atomic undo unit, so partial application is not a concern. It does not say what happens on mid-batch failure or how errors surface, keeping it short of a 5.
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?
Two sentences, no filler, with the core capability and the atomicity guarantee front-loaded and the exclusions trailing. Every clause earns its place.
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 4-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no per-parameter docs, the description is thin: it never defines the command object format, how model_id/active_path scope the batch, or what a caller gets back. It covers scope and atomicity adequately but leaves an agent guessing about the invocation payload.
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, and the description explains none of them: model_id, active_path, operation_name, and the shape of each command object (method/params) are all undocumented. The only parameter-adjacent detail, '1–100', merely restates the existing minItems/maxItems constraints, so it adds no meaning.
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 and resource ('Run 1–100 typed model mutations'), adds the distinguishing scope 'single atomic undo operation', and carves itself out from siblings by excluding Ruby, save, undo and nested batches. That is enough for an agent to separate it from model_undo or sketchup_run_ruby without opening the schema, though it never says what a 'typed model mutation' actually is.
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 exclusion list ('Ruby, save, undo, and nested batches excluded') is a useful when-not signal, but it stops short of naming the alternative tools (sketchup_run_ruby for Ruby, model_save, model_undo) or saying when a batch is preferable to individual calls. Usage is implied rather than directed.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.