Capture bounded entity and path metadata to compare subsequent changes in SketchUp models.
Capture bounded entity/path metadata for subsequent changes comparison.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_id | No | ||
| active_path | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falseInput 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 readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the meaningful behavioral fact that the capture exists to enable later comparison, but leaves opaque what 'bounded' means and whether the snapshot persists across calls or sessions.
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 economical sentence with no filler and the intent front-loaded. It is tight, though the brevity comes at the cost of the clarity issues 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?
With no output schema, a read-only snapshot tool still needs to tell an agent what the snapshot contains and how it is consumed. The description omits both, and with 0% parameter coverage it is not sufficient for an agent to call this correctly in the model_diff workflow.
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%, so the description must carry parameter meaning and it does not. 'entity/path' only loosely gestures at active_path, and it never explains model_id, why active_path is an array of positive integers, or what form a path takes.
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 verb 'Capture' plus the resource 'entity/path metadata' gives a general sense of the action, and 'for subsequent changes comparison' hints at intent. However, 'bounded entity/path metadata' is jargon that never resolves into concrete terms, and the tool is not distinguished from near-siblings like model_diff, model_get_info, or model_stats.
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 phrase 'for subsequent changes comparison' weakly implies this should be called before a diff, but neither model_diff nor any other alternative is named, and there is no statement of when this snapshot is required versus when model_get_info or model_stats would suffice.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.