Set material rendering options: surface render method (dithered or blended), displacement method (bump, displacement, or both), plus pass index and backface culling.
材质渲染设置。surface_render_method: DITHERED/BLENDED；displacement_method: BUMP/DISPLACEMENT/BOTH。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| material | Yes | ||
| pass_index | No | ||
| backface_culling | No | ||
| displacement_method | No | ||
| surface_render_method | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description only mentions enum values for two parameters but does not explain side effects, whether the material is modified in-place, or what happens if optional parameters are omitted. No behavioral details are disclosed.
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 extremely concise, consisting of a single sentence with relevant enum values. There is no unnecessary verbosity, making it easy to read and parse.
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?
Given the tool has 5 parameters and no output schema, the description is too sparse. It fails to explain the purpose of each parameter, expected behavior, or any return value, leaving an agent with insufficient context to use it correctly.
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 adds enum value context for surface_render_method and displacement_method, but it does not explain the meaning or effect of pass_index, backface_culling, or the material parameter itself. Schema coverage is 0%, so partial semantic addition is present.
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 '材质渲染设置' (Material rendering settings), which gives a general purpose but is not specific about which settings are affected or how it differs from other material tools like set_principled_inputs. It lacks explicit differentiation.
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?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool instead of the many similar material-related tools (e.g., set_principled_inputs, set_node_input). The description does not mention any conditions or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.