List sketch and feature collections present in the active 3D document to identify available model objects for subsequent CAD operations.
Probe known sketch/feature collections exposed by the selected or active 3D document.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| max_items | No | ||
| document_id | No | ||
| include_empty | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does not state whether the operation is read-only, what side effects might occur, how document selection is resolved, or what the response structure looks like. 'Probe' hints at inspection but is not explicit enough.
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 sentence with no fluff, which is good, but it is under-specified. It earns its place for purpose clarity yet omits behavioral and parameter details that are needed for correct invocation, so it is concise but not appropriately complete.
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?
Given three optional parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description is too sparse. An agent cannot infer what max_items or include_empty do, what 'probe' returns, or how document_id interacts with the selected document. The description provides only a high-level hint rather than a complete picture.
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 does not explain any of the three parameters (max_items, document_id, include_empty). Values like include_empty and document_id have no semantic explanation beyond their names and defaults, and the description makes no effort to compensate for the missing schema coverage.
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 identifies a specific verb ('Probe') and a clear resource ('known sketch/feature collections exposed by the selected or active 3D document'). It is distinguishable from sibling tools like list_sketch_entities or list_features because it targets collections rather than individual entities, though 'probe' still leaves some ambiguity about the exact operation.
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 guidance about when to use this tool compared to alternatives such as get_document_tree, list_features, or list_sketches. The description does not state conditions, exclusions, or prerequisites, so an agent receives no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.