Inspect a Buildup project's colors, part extents in voxels and meters, wheels, and anchors to understand model structure before writing Teardown mod files.
Show a project's colors, parts (extent in voxels and meters), wheels and anchors.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| project | Yes | Project name, for example 'red_pickup'. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and openWorldHint=false, covering the safety profile. The description adds useful return-content detail (colors, part extents in voxels and meters, wheels, anchors), which matters because there is no output schema, but it does not disclose operational behavior such as auth needs or limits.
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 front-loaded sentence with no filler. It efficiently lists the key return categories without repeating the tool name or schema details.
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 read-only, single-parameter summary tool with annotations covering safety, the description identifies the returned data categories, compensating for the absent output schema. It leaves a minor gap by not distinguishing itself from siblings such as inspect, but is otherwise sufficient.
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 100%; the single project parameter is fully documented with an example. The description adds no parameter syntax or constraints beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.
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?
"Show" is a specific verb and the object enumerates a project's colors, parts with extent units, wheels, and anchors, so the purpose is clear. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from siblings like list_projects or inspect, preventing a 5.
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 contains no when-to-use, prerequisites, or alternative-tool guidance. Nothing tells the agent when to choose this over list_projects or inspect; it only states the output content.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.