Check the local SketchUp bridge connection, selected profile or instance, capabilities, queue, and recent requests. Reveals runtime permissions and available optional APIs.
Inspect connection, selected SketchUp profile/instance, capabilities, queue and recent request states. Runtime permissions and optional APIs are discovered here.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, closed-world, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds genuine value by enumerating what the inspection reports (connection state, active profile/instance, capability/optional-API discovery, queue and recent request states), which the annotations do not convey.
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 tight sentences with zero filler. The primary purpose is front-loaded, and the second sentence adds the distinct 'discovery' angle rather than restating the first.
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?
No output schema exists, so the description must signal the return content — and it does so by listing the state categories it inspects. With no parameters and annotations covering mutability, this is largely complete; only the exact response shape remains undisclosed.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing for the description to compensate for, and it does not need to explain input syntax.
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 ('Inspect') and enumerates the exact resource surface — connection, profile/instance, capabilities, queue, recent request states. This is unmistakably distinct from every sibling, all of which are modeling/entity operations.
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 line 'Runtime permissions and optional APIs are discovered here' implies this is the discovery/preflight step before invoking other tools, which gives implied usage context. However, it names no alternative and gives no explicit when-to-call-vs-when-not condition.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.