Retrieve the saved SCAD source code and current revision for any model by its ID. Use the returned revision to safely edit and update the model.
Read the saved UTF-8 SCAD source and revision over MCP, including inside Docker. Edit scad_code and pass its revision as expected_revision to modify_3d_model.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It discloses that the tool reads source and revision and mentions MCP/Docker context, but it omits return format, error behavior, or side effects. The behavior is partially transparent but incomplete.
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 brief and mostly to the point, with no fluff. The second sentence is slightly out of place for a read tool but still within the workflow context, keeping the overall structure reasonably 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?
The description provides some workflow context (read source, edit, pass revision to modify_3d_model) but is incomplete. It does not explain what the tool returns, how model_id is used, or any caveats, leaving important context gaps for an agent.
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 only parameter, model_id, has no schema description and is not mentioned in the descriptive text. Since schema coverage is 0% and the description does not compensate, the parameter semantics are essentially undocumented.
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 clearly states the tool reads a saved UTF-8 SCAD source and its revision, which distinguishes it from siblings like get_model_preview. However, the second sentence shifts to editing and passing revision to modify_3d_model, which somewhat muddies the primary purpose.
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 implies a workflow by instructing to edit scad_code and pass the revision to modify_3d_model, but it does not explicitly state when to use this tool versus alternatives or when not to use it. The guidance is suggestive rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.