Inspect an FBX model's meshes and material slots to prepare a coating specification for models not created by Model Lab.
Any model's meshes and material slots (an FBX), to write a coating spec for a model Model Lab did not make.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fbx | Yes |
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 carries the full behavioral burden. It implies a read-only inspection operation and identifies the returned content (meshes and material slots), but never states that it is non-destructive, how the FBX is supplied, or what happens with invalid/missing files.
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 sentence with no filler, and the resource/return content is front-loaded. The grammar is slightly compressed, but the description remains efficient.
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 one-parameter inspection tool with no output schema, the description gives the essential purpose and the shape of the result. It still leaves the input format and read-only behavior underspecified, which matters because neither annotations nor schema fill those gaps.
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 coverage is 0% and the sole 'fbx' parameter has no schema description. The parenthetical '(an FBX)' only hints at the input type; it does not clarify whether 'fbx' is a path, file handle, upload, or asset identifier.
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?
It gives a specific verb and resource: describing a model's meshes and material slots. The phrase 'for a model Model Lab did not make' clearly separates it from spec_for_modellab, the likely sibling for Model Lab-created assets.
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 states a clear usage context: preparing a coating spec for a model that Model Lab did not make. It does not explicitly name spec_for_modellab as the alternative or spell out when not to use this tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.