Save or update the current SketchUp view as a named scene, or select an existing scene to restore a specific camera and display setup.
Save/update the current view as a scene, or select an existing scene.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| action | No | save | |
| model_id | 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, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the save/update/select modes, but says nothing about what 'update' overwrites, whether re-selecting is reversible, or any authorization requirement. With annotations carrying the safety burden, this is adequate but thin.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the primary action, with zero filler. It is efficient, though the terseness comes at the cost of the missing detail noted in other dimensions.
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 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage and no output schema, the description is too thin. An agent cannot infer what model_id scopes, what active_path is, or what happens to an existing scene on update.
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, so the description must compensate but largely does not. The words 'save/update' and 'select' loosely map to the action enum, but name, model_id, and active_path are never explained in the description.
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 description states a specific verb and resource ('Save/update the current view as a scene, or select an existing scene'), and it distinguishes the two modes (save vs select). It does not explicitly name sibling tools like scenes_list or scene_clear, so no sibling differentiation is present beyond the resource name.
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 dual purpose hints at when each mode applies (create/update vs. select), but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this versus scenes_list, scene_clear, or model_save. Usage is implied rather than stated, no exclusions or prerequisites.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.