Search and list objects in a Cascadeur scene by name substring and exact type, returning stable IDs with pagination for efficient scene inspection.
Find objects by name substring and exact type, with stable IDs and pagination.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | ||
| query | No | ||
| offset | No | ||
| object_type | No |
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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful behavior ('stable IDs and pagination') but does not elaborate on return contents, ordering, or default query behavior, so it only moderately exceeds the annotations.
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?
A single front-loaded sentence with zero filler: verb, resource, filters, and key behaviors all in one compact phrase. Every word contributes.
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 read-only listing tool with four optional parameters and no output schema, the description is nearly complete: it names the search dimensions, pagination, and stable identifiers. It would be stronger if it explicitly stated what fields the returned objects contain, but the core calling context is present.
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 carry semantics. It maps query to name substring, object_type to exact type, and limit/offset to pagination, which compensates for missing per-parameter docs. It does not explain defaults or null semantics, but those are visible in the schema.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Find'), resource ('objects'), and explicit filtering criteria ('name substring and exact type'), plus meaningful operating traits ('stable IDs and pagination'). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_object, select_objects, and list_scenes.
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 description implies the tool is for finding objects by name/type when listing/paging is needed, but it does not explicitly state when to prefer get_object, select_objects, or other sibling tools. No exclusions or alternative routing are given.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.