scene_hierarchyRead a compact text DAG hierarchy from roots or the current selection to inspect Maya scene structure, with depth, node limit, type filtering, and optional shape inclusion.
Read a compact text DAG hierarchy from roots or the current selection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| depth | No | ||
| roots | No | ||
| max_nodes | No | ||
| include_types | No | ||
| include_shapes | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It implies a read-only operation and mentions compact text output, but it does not explain permissions, selection impact, output limits, truncation behavior, or how depth and max_nodes affect the result.
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?
The description is a single front-loaded sentence with no filler and the core action is immediately clear. Its brevity becomes under-specification for a five-parameter tool, but the sentence itself is efficient.
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 tool has five optional parameters and no annotations, so the description should provide more behavioral and parameter context. Although an output schema exists and return values need not be explained, the input parameter meaning and usage guidance remain largely absent.
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 the description only loosely explains 'roots' as an entry point. It provides no meaning for depth, max_nodes, include_types, or include_shapes, leaving most parameters undocumented in both the schema and the description.
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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Read a compact text DAG hierarchy' from roots or the current selection. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools such as scene_context or scene_connections.
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?
The phrase 'from roots or the current selection' hints at source selection, but there is no explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. No exclusions, prerequisites, or sibling comparisons are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.