Converts a face tag into the current FaceN index for downstream tools that need direct references, erroring on missing or ambiguous tags.
Resolve a face tag to the current FaceN index. Errors on miss or ambiguity.
Use this when you need to pass a (object, 'FaceN') reference into a tool that doesn't accept tags directly (e.g. legacy FEM constraints).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| tag | Yes | ||
| handle | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are present, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses meaningful behavioral traits: it resolves to the 'current' index and, importantly, errors on miss or ambiguity, telling the agent this is a strict lookup rather than a lenient one. It does not cover permissions or edge cases, keeping it below a 5.
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 short sentences with the core action front-loaded and the usage context following. No redundant or filler content.
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?
For a simple two-parameter resolve tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers purpose, usage condition, error behavior, and return concept. The main gap is the undocumented handle/tag parameter semantics, but overall it is adequate to invoke the tool 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It maps 'face tag' to the tag parameter and '(object, ...)' plausibly to the handle parameter, and clarifies the return is a current FaceN index. However, it never explicitly defines what handle is or its format, leaving the two parameters only partially documented.
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 (resolve) and resource (a face tag) with the output target ('current FaceN index'), which is clearer than a generic 'get face'. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from close siblings like resolve_edge, query_faces, or list_faces, so it stops short of a 5.
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 second sentence gives a concrete when-to-use condition: passing a (object, 'FaceN') reference into tools that don't accept tags, with a concrete example (legacy FEM constraints). It names no explicit when-not or named alternative, so it is clear context rather than full routing guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.