Group selected SketchUp entities into a single group within the current edit context to organize models and simplify editing.
Group existing entities in the current edit context.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| model_id | No | ||
| entity_ids | Yes | ||
| active_path | No |
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 / entity_ids / items / $refAdded value: +"#/properties/active_path/items"Input schema / properties / entity_ids / items / exclusiveMinimumRemoved value: -0Input schema / properties / entity_ids / items / maximumRemoved value: -9007199254740991Input schema / properties / entity_ids / items / minimumRemoved value: --9007199254740991Input schema / properties / entity_ids / items / typeRemoved value: -"integer"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 establish this is a non-readonly, non-destructive, non-idempotent mutation, but the description adds little beyond that. It does not disclose what happens to the source entities (e.g., they become children of a new group), whether the group is returned/referenced, or any nesting/permission constraints.
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 front-loaded sentence with no padding. It is efficient, though its brevity comes at the cost of the missing detail noted 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?
For a mutation tool with no output schema and no parameter documentation, the definition is under-specified: it lacks side-effect details and parameter meaning. An agent could call it, but would be guessing about the group's name, target model, and the fate of the original entities.
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 4 parameters, and the description only loosely implies entity_ids (the entities to group) and active_path (current edit context). The name and model_id parameters, and the required nature of entity_ids, are never addressed.
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 (group) and resource (existing entities) scoped to the current edit context, which reads clearly against siblings like entity_duplicate or entity_make_unique. It does not explicitly name or contrast any alternative, so it stops short of a 5.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no mention of alternatives such as entity_make_unique or whether grouping requires prior selection. Only the implicit 'existing entities in the current edit context' scope is offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.