Read the final timing, rig, and asset-path verification report for a managed Unreal import to confirm the export matches the target project.
Read a managed Unreal import's final timing, rig and asset-path verification report.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| job_id | Yes | ||
| target | 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, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds useful content by naming the report's focus areas: timing, rig verification, and asset-path verification. It does not disclose behavior around incomplete jobs, failed imports, or how attempt/sample_index affect the report.
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 a single front-loaded sentence with no filler, which is structurally efficient. It is arguably too terse for a tool with five parameters and no schema descriptions, so it is not perfectly sized for the tool's complexity.
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 output schema and annotations reduce the need to explain return values and safety behavior, but the description leaves major invocation gaps. With 0% schema description coverage, it should at least clarify the roles of attempt, source_kind, sample_index, and the target structure, yet it says nothing about them.
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% for five top-level parameters, and the description does not mention job_id, target, attempt, source_kind, or sample_index. The report-content wording loosely relates to rig and asset path, but it does not explain the meaning or effect of the parameters the agent must supply.
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 uses a specific verb, 'Read', and a specific resource, 'a managed Unreal import's final timing, rig and asset-path verification report'. It is clear what the tool returns, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as get_handoff_report or execute_unreal_handoff.
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?
The word 'final' implies the report is read after an Unreal import has completed, giving some implied usage context. However, the description never states when to prefer this over alternatives like get_handoff_report, nor does it mention prerequisites such as the import job needing to be finished.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.