Inspect STL/OBJ meshes to identify triangle counts, millimeter bounds, and edge issues before texturing; no model changes.
Inspect a local STL/OBJ before texturing: triangles, millimeter bounds, open and non-manifold edges. Does not modify the model.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_path | Yes | Absolute path or path relative to the configured BUMPMESH_ROOT. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description reinforces this with 'Does not modify the model' while adding what exactly is inspected. It does not cover failure modes or return format, but for a safe read-only inspection tool this is acceptable.
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?
Two compact sentences with no filler. The first sentence front-loads the action and scope, and the second delivers the key non-mutation guarantee. Every phrase earns its place.
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?
For a single-parameter read-only tool, the description covers purpose, parameter expectations, and non-modifying behavior. With no output schema, it hints at return content via 'triangles, millimeter bounds, open and non-manifold edges', but it could explicitly state output format or error behavior.
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 schema covers model_path semantics at 100% by describing absolute or BUMPMESH_ROOT-relative paths. The description adds value by restricting the file type to local STL/OBJ, which is not present in the schema and helps disambiguate the parameter's expected input.
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 ('Inspect'), identifies the resource ('local STL/OBJ before texturing'), and lists concrete outputs (triangles, millimeter bounds, open and non-manifold edges). It clearly differentiates from the siblings apply_texture and list_supported_formats by focusing on geometry validation rather than modification or format listing.
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 phrase 'before texturing' provides a clear workflow context, indicating this tool is the prerequisite to apply_texture. It doesn't explicitly name alternatives or state exclusions, but the intended use case is evident and distinct from list_supported_formats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.