Export SketchUp models to files using the installed exporter selected by file extension. Availability depends on host edition and version.
Export through the installed SketchUp exporter selected by file extension. Availability depends on the host edition/version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| options | No | ||
| model_id | No | ||
| overwrite | 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 this is a non-read-only, non-destructive, non-idempotent write. The description adds genuine context: exporter selection is driven by the file extension and availability is host-dependent. It does not explain what overwrite does, whether an existing file is clobbered by default, or where output lands, so it goes beyond annotations only partially.
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 action, no filler. It is efficient, though the terseness cuts into useful detail rather than being a model of packing information densely.
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 tool with five parameters, a nested options object, no schema descriptions, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. It omits parameter meanings, overwrite behavior, and the shape of the result, leaving the agent with substantial guesswork.
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?
Five parameters with 0% schema description coverage, so the description carries the full burden, yet it names none of them. The 'selected by file extension' phrase implicitly gives meaning to path, and options is left entirely opaque despite being a nested object, but most parameters are undocumented in both places.
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+resource: exporting the model via the installed SketchUp exporter, with the notable detail that the exporter is chosen by file extension. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like view_export or model_save, but the mechanism it describes is unique enough that an agent can tell it apart.
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 only guidance is a caveat that availability depends on host edition/version; there is no statement of when to use this versus view_export, model_save, or model_snapshot. No prerequisites or exclusions are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.