Produce shaded assembly views from chosen orientations with adjustable dimensions and edge display, using document, workspace, and element IDs to visualize the model.
Render shaded views of an Assembly. Same semantics as render_part_studio_views.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| edges | No | ||
| views | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| elementId | Yes | Assembly element ID | |
| documentId | Yes | Document ID | |
| workspaceId | Yes | Workspace ID |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it only says the tool renders — it does not state that the operation is non-destructive, what it returns (image? bytes? URL?), or any permission/side-effect details. The sibling reference hints at behavior only if the agent already knows render_part_studio_views. For a tool with zero annotation coverage, this is a meaningful gap.
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, ten words, with the core purpose front-loaded in the first sentence. The second sentence earns its place by linking to a sibling for deeper semantics. It is about as compact as a definition can be without losing all substance.
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 7 parameters (4 undocumented), no annotations, and no output schema, yet the description explains none of the return behavior, parameter meaning, or default rendering options. The sibling reference partly compensates if the agent knows the other tool, but on its own the definition is too thin for an agent to invoke this tool confidently.
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 only 43% (documentId, workspaceId, elementId are documented; edges, views, width, height are not). The description adds only the vague 'shaded views' hint, which barely maps to the views parameter and says nothing about edges, width, or height. With low schema coverage, the description was supposed to compensate and does not.
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 first sentence names a specific verb and resource: 'Render shaded views of an Assembly.' The second sentence anchors it to a known sibling (render_part_studio_views), which helps an agent place it among the render_sketch/render_part_studio_views/export_* siblings. It doesn't fully stand alone — full semantics are deferred to the sibling — but the core purpose is unmistakable.
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?
'Same semantics as render_part_studio_views' implicitly tells the agent this is the Assembly counterpart of that tool, which is genuine routing guidance among the siblings. However, there is no explicit when-to-use wording, no exclusions, and no mention of alternatives like export_assembly for non-rendering output. The guidance is implied rather than stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.