Counts vertices, edges, and faces, and summarizes face direction, area, and world center ranges. Use it before selecting faces with where.
Counts of vertices, edges and faces, and the faces grouped by direction (+X, -X, +Y, -Y, +Z, -Z, other) with
their area and the world range of their centres. Read it before you pick faces with where.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| object | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the read-only, informational nature implicitly by describing counts and groupings, and adds a workflow hint (use before selecting faces). However it doesn't state return format, performance characteristics, or that it makes no modifications, which is relevant given zero annotation coverage. A 3 reflects adequate but incomplete behavioral disclosure.
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 sentences, front-loaded with the verb and resource, then the actionable usage note. Efficient and no filler. The directional enumeration is slightly verbose but accurate and useful.
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?
No output schema and no annotations, so the description must convey returns and behavior. It does describe the shape of the output conceptually (counts, per-direction face groups with area and centre range), which is helpful. But it omits the `object` parameter semantics and does not clarify mutation safety. Adequate but with clear gaps for a zero-annotation tool.
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% and there is one parameter (`object`). The description never explains the `object` parameter or its accepted values. The parameter is required, so this is a gap. Baseline for one undocumented param is around 3; the description adds context about what info is produced but not about the input.
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 (counts) and resource (vertices, edges, faces and their directional grouping) with concrete detail about what is reported, including the six axis directions and area/centre range. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like check_mesh, inspect_glb and measure by being an information-gathering op. It doesn't differentiate from every sibling by name, but the content specificity is high.
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?
Explicitly says 'Read it before you pick faces with `where`', which names a downstream workflow (select_faces / face selection by predicate) and positions this tool as a prerequisite. That's clear context for when to use it. It does not state when NOT to use it or name alternative info tools, so it falls short of a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.