mcp-for-maya

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Scene Validate

scene_validate

Read-onlyIdempotent

Validate Maya scenes against spatial constraints such as minimum clearance, object limits, overlaps, and height rules. Runs read-only checks to find violations without modifying objects.

Instructions

Validate scene against spatial constraints.

Checks the scene for constraint violations like minimum clearance, object limits, overlaps, and height requirements. This is a read-only check without auto_fix mutations (it cannot modify or repair objects; for automated fixes, see scene_plan with auto_fix=True). Because it is non-destructive, no undo rollback checkpoint is created. Requires an active Maya session.

Boundary: Disambiguated from scene_review (full scene quality audit across 11 checks) and scene_assert (verifies specific numeric values or object existence).

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`rules`	Yes	JSON string with constraint rules. Format: [{"type": "min_clearance", "zone": "entrance", "value": 180}, {"type": "max_objects", "value": 5000}, {"type": "no_overlap", "objects": ["wall_a", "shelf_b"]}, {"type": "min_height", "objects": ["door"], "value": 250}] Types: min_clearance, max_objects, no_overlap, min_height, max_height
`format`	No	Output format - "cos" or "json".	cos
`session_key`	No	Maya session key.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.4/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, so the description earns credit for adding behavior beyond them: no undo rollback checkpoint is created and an active Maya session is required. It does restate 'read-only' which the annotations already cover, slightly reducing the marginal value.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, then scope, then boundary. Well organized, though the non-destructive/no-checkpoint sentence overlaps with the annotation hints and could be trimmed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists so return values need no explanation. The description covers what is checked, side-effect behavior, session prerequisite, and sibling boundaries — everything needed to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema documents rules format, supported constraint types, format enum values, and session_key. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema provides, so baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb (validate) and resource (scene) plus the scope of checks (clearance, object limits, overlaps, height). It explicitly disambiguates from scene_review and scene_assert, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit when-to-use routing: use this for constraint checks, use scene_plan with auto_fix=True for automated fixes, and the Boundary section names scene_review and scene_assert as the alternatives with their distinct roles. Nothing is left to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.