Saves all texture-map outputs for a specified material profile and returns each file's name, size, hash, and channel, enabling automated verification after graph builds.
Export a material and return every output file with size, hash, and channel.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| size | No | ||
| prefix | Yes | ||
| profile | Yes | ||
| material_id | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.3.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations declare destructiveHint=true and readOnlyHint=false, yet the description 'return every output file' reads like a safe read operation and never explains that exporting writes/overwrites files on disk or what is destroyed. With annotations present the bar is lower, but this gap is exactly the surprising behavior an agent needs disclosed.
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; the verb and resource lead immediately. It is appropriately sized, though the brevity is partly the cause of the missing guidance 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?
For a destructive, 4-parameter export tool with 0% schema coverage, the description omits usage context, parameter meaning, and any warning about the write behavior. An output schema exists so return values need not be explained, yet the description redundantly covers them while leaving the operationally important gaps unaddressed.
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 (size, prefix, profile, material_id), and the description adds no meaning for any of them — not even what 'prefix' or 'profile' refer to. The one reference to 'size' describes the returned file size, not the size parameter, so it does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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 ('Export a material') and even summarizes the return payload (output files with size, hash, channel). This distinguishes it from preview/render siblings in spirit, but it never names an alternative tool, so the differentiation is implicit rather than explicit.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance and no mention of alternatives like preview_material or render_material_variations. The agent must infer from the name alone whether exporting is the right operation versus previewing or rendering.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.