Add a 3D file (.serp, .step, .obj) to the current scene without removing existing objects. Set zoom_extents to true to adjust the view.
Add a file to the scene (.serp, .step/.stp, .obj). What is already there stays. The user's view is left alone unless zoom_extents is true.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| zoom_extents | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.10.4Input schema / properties / zoom_extentsAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "title": "Zoom Extents",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.5.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose genuinely useful behavior: the add is additive ('What is already there stays') and non-destructive to the user's view unless zoom_extents is set. It omits error behavior for unsupported/duplicate files and any permission or overwrite semantics.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the action and formats, then the two behavioral caveats. No filler; every clause carries information.
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?
An output schema exists so return values need not be described, and the description covers the mutation's additive semantics and viewport effect. It stops short of covering failure modes or permissions, which would matter for a no-annotation write 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 coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it enumerates the accepted file extensions for `path` and explains what `zoom_extents` actually does to the user's view. Remaining gaps are path format/conventions and whether the path must be absolute.
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 and resource ('Add a file to the scene') and enumerates supported formats (.serp, .step/.stp, .obj), which goes beyond the tool name. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from siblings like serp_export or serp_command, but the import action is unambiguous.
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 when-to-use guidance, no prerequisites, and no named alternatives among the many siblings (serp_export, serp_command, serp_prepare_script). The reader must infer that this is the tool for bringing external geometry files into the scene.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.