Inspect an object's behaviors and data channels at any frame, including unavailable values, to review its state before editing properties.
Inspect an exact object's behaviours and data channels, including unavailable values. Read before editing properties.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frame | No | ||
| object | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is known. The description adds value by specifying that it returns 'unavailable values' and by framing it as a pre-edit step, which are behavioral details beyond the annotations. No contradictions.
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, no filler, and the primary purpose is front-loaded. The sentence 'Read before editing properties' efficiently adds usage context. Every word earns its place.
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 description covers the core purpose and gives a usage hint, but it does not explain the 'frame' parameter, which is crucial for time-dependent inspection. It also doesn't clarify what 'behaviours and data channels' concretely return, though annotations cover safety. For a tool with two parameters and no output schema, more detail on the frame semantics would make it complete.
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 implies the 'object' parameter by saying 'an exact object', but it never explicitly maps to the schema, and it completely omits the 'frame' parameter, leaving its purpose (likely frame-specific inspection) ambiguous. This is a significant gap given no other documentation.
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 clearly states a specific verb ('Inspect') and resource ('an exact object's behaviours and data channels'), and adds a distinctive feature ('including unavailable values') that differentiates it from siblings like get_pose or list_objects. The phrase 'Read before editing properties' further clarifies its role as a pre-edit inspection tool.
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?
It gives a clear usage context: 'Read before editing properties' implies it should be used before property-editing tools (like cascadeur_set_properties). It does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusions, but the context is enough for an agent to infer when to use it. A minor gap is not naming sibling tools that overlap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.