Create or update SketchUp materials with color, texture, alpha, and optional PBR roughness; older SketchUp versions fall back when roughness is unsupported.
Create/update material. Optional PBR roughness gracefully falls back on older SketchUp.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| alpha | No | ||
| color | No | ||
| texture | No | ||
| model_id | No | ||
| roughness | No | ||
| 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 / model_idAdded value: +{
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare writable, non-destructive, non-idempotent behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds one useful behavioral detail (roughness silently degrades on older SketchUp versions), but says nothing about update-vs-create semantics, overwrite behavior, or required context.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core purpose and no filler. It is appropriately terse, though the terseness is partly a symptom of under-specification rather than disciplined editing.
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 7-parameter mutation tool with no output schema and no annotation depth, the description is too thin. It covers only roughness and omits the payload semantics and effect of almost every other field.
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?
Seven parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description is the only channel for semantics. It clarifies roughness is optional and PBR-only, but leaves name, color, alpha, texture, model_id, and active_path entirely unexplained.
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 pair (create/update) and resource (material), so the agent knows it is a write operation on materials. However, it does not differentiate from the closely related sibling entity_set_material, leaving ambiguity about which to pick.
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 materials_list or entity_set_material, and no prerequisites (e.g., an open model context) are stated. Usage is only implied by the verb 'create/update'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.