List 3MF members and read JSON or text metadata, including per-object XML, to inspect project contents and settings before slicing.
List 3MF members and read JSON/text metadata, including per-object XML.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| metadata_member | No | Metadata/project_settings.config |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full behavioral burden. The verbs 'list' and 'read' clearly signal a non-destructive operation and mention per-object XML, but the description omits constraints such as required permissions, invalid path behavior, or whether metadata_member must exist.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though its brevity leaves important gaps that could have been addressed without becoming verbose.
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?
An output schema exists, but the description does not compensate for the 0% schema description coverage on the two parameters. It also fails to clarify how this inspection tool relates to nearby siblings, leaving the agent with insufficient context for correct invocation.
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% for two parameters, and the description does not explain the required 'path' or the optional 'metadata_member' beyond a vague reference to metadata. It adds little semantic meaning over the raw schema fields.
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 specific verbs (list, read) and resources (3MF members, JSON/text metadata, per-object XML), making the tool's basic purpose clear. It does not distinguish itself from sibling inspection tools such as project_objects_read or mesh_inspect, so it falls short of full sibling differentiation.
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 description gives no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like project_objects_read, mesh_inspect, or artifact_read. It implies archive inspection but provides no conditions, exclusions, or routing cues.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.