Retrieve the active SketchUp model's title, entity count, units, bounds, and selection size to inspect scene state before running Ruby commands or edits.
Return model title, entity count, active units, bounds, and selection size.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | 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. 'Return' implies a safe read, but there is no disclosure of cost, state requirements, or whether the model must be loaded. Beyond the implied read-only nature, nothing behavioral is added that the output schema doesn't already cover.
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 waste that immediately tells the agent what comes back.
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?
An output schema exists, so the description needn't restate return values — and in fact it mostly duplicates them. For a simple zero-parameter read tool this is adequate, but the absence of any usage context against three siblings leaves a gap.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline of 4 applies; there is no parameter semantics to compensate for and the schema is trivially complete.
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?
Specific verb 'Return' plus an enumerated list of what the scene info contains (title, entity count, active units, bounds, selection size). The field list distinguishes it from siblings like get_selection, though the overlap with 'selection size' isn't explicitly called out.
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 indication of when to call this versus eval_ruby, get_selection, or screenshot. The description states only what is returned, leaving the agent to infer that this is the general scene-inspection entry point.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.