Converts .vox or .gox voxel files to .obj, .gltf, or PNG renders, enabling AI agents to export 3D models and images.
Converte um arquivo de voxels (.vox ou .gox) para .obj, .gltf ou render .png.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| input_file | Yes | Arquivo de origem (.vox ou .gox) | |
| output_file | Yes | Arquivo de destino (.obj, .gltf ou .png) |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not disclose whether an existing output file is overwritten, whether the operation fails without a running Goxel instance, whether .png export means a rendered image rather than a model, or how errors surface — all material for a file-mutating tool.
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 is efficient, though its brevity is partly the cause of the missing behavioral detail noted elsewhere rather than a deliberate trade-off.
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 file-writing conversion tool with zero annotations and no output schema, the description leaves key gaps: overwrite behavior, runtime prerequisites (headless vs GUI), and what a .png render produces. An agent could call it, but cannot predict side effects.
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%, so both parameters are already documented with accepted extensions. The description restates the same extension lists and adds nothing further (no path format, no overwrite flag semantics), 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?
The description names a specific verb (converts) and resource (voxel file .vox/.gox) plus the exact output formats (.obj, .gltf, .png), so an agent immediately understands the operation. It does not explicitly contrast with the sibling creation/GUI tools, but the export framing makes the distinction obvious.
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 only implied: the tool exists to convert voxel files, and the input/output extensions are stated. There is no guidance on preconditions (must the file already exist? must the Goxel GUI/context be open? absolute vs relative paths?) or on when to prefer this over running a custom script.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.