Reads complete JSON input schemas for Kimodo generation, revision, pose reference, and export settings, including constraint controls, so clients can build valid payloads.
Read a complete JSON input schema, including advanced generation and constraint controls.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| schema_name | Yes |
| 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, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered by structured data. The description adds the useful claim that the returned schema is 'complete' and includes advanced generation and constraint controls, which is mild but real added context. It says nothing about size, truncation, or error behavior for unknown names.
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 arguably too terse rather than padded, so the structure is efficient even if content is thin.
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?
Output schema and annotations are present, so return values and safety need not be restated. However, for a discovery tool with six enumerated schema types, the description gives an agent no map of which schema to request or why — a meaningful gap that the structured fields do not fill.
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% and the description never mentions the single parameter. The enum enumerates the six valid schema names, so an agent can technically pick a value, but nothing explains what each schema governs or which one applies to which workflow — the description does not compensate for the coverage gap.
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+resource: 'Read a complete JSON input schema.' The trailing phrase 'including advanced generation and constraint controls' hints at breadth but is vague. It does not contrast itself with siblings like get_workflow or get_capabilities, though the resource it names is distinct enough to be actionable.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of prerequisites, and no named alternative. The agent is left to infer that this is the tool to call before invoking generation tools, and nothing tells it when reading a schema is unnecessary.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.