Combine multiple mesh objects into a single mesh, using the first selected object as the target and removing the source objects.
Join multiple mesh objects into one. The first object becomes the active/target. Destroys source objects.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objects | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0+hardened.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description goes beyond the destructiveHint annotation by explicitly stating that source objects are destroyed and that the first object becomes the active target. This adds useful behavioral context without contradicting the annotation.
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, dense sentences with no filler. The core purpose is front-loaded and every sentence adds information: operation, target behavior, and destructive side effect.
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?
The description covers the essential behavioral contract for a simple one-parameter tool, and an output schema exists so return values need not be explained. The main remaining gap is the exact format of object references in the 'objects' array.
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?
The description conveys that the first array item is the target object and the rest are joined into it, which adds meaning beyond the bare schema. However, it does not clarify whether the strings in 'objects' are object names, IDs, or paths, leaving a gap given 0% schema description coverage.
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 ('Join') and resource ('multiple mesh objects') and adds crucial semantics: the first object becomes the active/target and source objects are destroyed. This clearly distinguishes it from siblings like separate_mesh and get_mesh_info.
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 by the description: join when you need to combine multiple meshes into one. However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative tools for related operations like separating meshes.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.