Inspect a specific USD layer in a LOP node by supplying its node path and layer index, starting from 0 as the root layer.
Inspect a USD layer by index.
Args: node_path: LOP node path. layer_index: Layer index (0 = root layer).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| node_path | Yes | ||
| layer_index | No |
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 must disclose behavior. It only says 'inspect' without indicating whether it is read-only, what it returns, or if any side effects occur. There is no mention of required permissions or limitations, leaving the agent to guess about the tool's behavior.
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?
The description is succinct, with no wasted words. It clearly lists the action and parameters in a structured format. It is appropriately sized for its simplicity, though it could be slightly more informative without becoming verbose.
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 tool, the description is incomplete. There is no output schema, and the description doesn't state what the 'inspection' returns, whether it's a summary, detailed info, or something else. With no annotations and no parameter coverage, the agent lacks sufficient context to predict the outcome of the call.
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 does provide brief explanations for both parameters: 'node_path: LOP node path' and 'layer_index: Layer index (0 = root layer)', adding meaning beyond the schema's types and default. However, the explanations are minimal and don't elaborate on formats or edge cases, so it only partially compensates.
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 states a clear verb ('Inspect') and resource ('USD layer by index'), which is specific and distinguishes it from broader tools like get_usd_layers (which likely lists layers) and get_usd_prim (which fetches a prim). However, it doesn't explicitly differentiate from similar inspection tools, so it's not 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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives. It doesn't mention any prerequisites, conditions, or exclusions. The description simply states the action without context for selection.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.