Retrieve the Blender execution report for a managed skeleton or fitted-character handoff to verify export status and troubleshoot job results.
Read the Blender execution report for a managed skeleton or fitted-character handoff.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| attempt | No | ||
| source_kind | No | skeleton | |
| sample_index | No |
| 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 declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds the handoff scope (skeleton vs fitted-character) but says nothing about what the report contains, whether it is a snapshot vs live status, or how retries/attempts are surfaced.
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 no filler. It is efficient, though its terseness is part of the parameter-documentation problem rather than a virtue in itself.
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 return values need no explanation, and annotations cover safety. But for a 4-parameter tool with 0% schema coverage, the description omits any guidance on selecting among attempts and samples, which is the main thing an agent could get wrong here.
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 carry parameter meaning and does not. It never explains job_id, attempt, or sample_index; 'skeleton or fitted-character' loosely hints at source_kind but doesn't tie it to the enum values or explain the 0-99 attempt and 0-3 sample_index bounds.
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?
States a specific verb ('Read') and resource ('Blender execution report'), scoped to 'managed skeleton or fitted-character handoff'. The word 'Blender' implicitly separates it from get_unreal_report, but the description never names that sibling or explicitly contrasts the two report tools.
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 explicit statement of when to call this versus get_job, get_job_log, get_artifact, or get_unreal_report. Usage is only inferable from the phrase 'execution report', leaving the agent to guess that this is the post-execute_blender_handoff step.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.