Lists faces, edges, groups, and component instances in a model or named group, reporting all lengths and coordinates in metres.
List entities (faces, edges, groups, component instances) in the model or inside a named group. All lengths and coordinates are in metres.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| group_name | No | If provided, list entities inside this group. Otherwise lists top-level model entities. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0+make2017Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. The verb 'list' clearly implies a non-destructive read, and the statement that all lengths/coordinates are in metres is genuinely useful behavioral context. But it does not describe the return structure, ordering, or handling of empty/edge cases, which a no-annotation tool ideally would.
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?
Two short sentences with zero filler; the core list scope is front-loaded and the unit convention follows as a compact clarifier. Every clause earns its place.
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 single-optional-parameter list tool with no output schema, the description covers what is listed, where, and the unit convention. It lacks return-shape and ordering details, but those are minor for a simple enumeration tool with no annotations to reconcile.
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 coverage is 100% and there is only one optional parameter, so the schema already documents group_name fully. The description's phrasing 'inside a named group' is consistent but adds no semantics beyond the schema. 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?
Specific verb+resource with an enumerated set of entity types (faces, edges, groups, component instances) and clear scope (model vs. named group). It distinguishes itself from list_materials/list_layers/list_components by the resource, though it doesn't explicitly name those siblings as alternatives.
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?
Usage is implied through the optional group_name parameter ('if provided... otherwise top-level'), which tells the agent the two modes of operation. However, it never states when to prefer this over siblings like get_selection or list_components, nor any exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.