Inspect body, point, box controls, joints, and finger controller candidates to establish correct axes for rig validation and animation.
Inspect body, Point and Box controls, joints and finger controller candidates. Names alone do not establish axes.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the bar is lower. The description adds a valuable caveat: names alone do not establish axes, which tells the agent not to infer axis orientation from control names when interpreting the rig summary.
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, front-loaded with the main inspection scope and followed by a single caveat. No filler or repetition; every phrase contributes either to what the tool covers or to how the result should be interpreted.
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 is a zero-parameter read-only summary, so invocation requires no additional context. The description names the categories of rig elements covered and warns about the axes caveat, which is sufficient for an agent to know when to call it and what to expect at a high level.
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?
The input schema has zero parameters, so there is nothing for the description to document. With schema coverage at 100% and no parameters, the baseline of 4 applies; the description does not need to add parameter semantics.
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 uses a specific verb ('Inspect') and names the concrete resources covered: body, Point and Box controls, joints, and finger controller candidates. This makes it distinguishable from generic sibling tools like cascadeur_list_objects or cascadeur_get_object, though it does not explicitly name alternatives.
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 guidance is provided about when to choose this tool over alternatives such as cascadeur_list_objects, cascadeur_get_object, or cascadeur_get_state. The verb 'Inspect' implies a read-only use case, but there are no exclusions, prerequisites, or alternative-routing hints.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.