Retrieves KeyShot scene details including name, file path, object and triangle counts, units, and view/render resolutions to verify scene composition before rendering.
Nom et fichier de la scène, nombre d'objets et de triangles, unité, résolutions de la vue et du rendu.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
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 and openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds a little by listing the exact facts returned (counts, unit, resolutions), which signals this is a summary read rather than a deep traversal, but it says nothing about cost, latency, or whether the scene must be loaded.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the most identifying facts (name and file) before the counters and settings. Nothing is padded, though the enumerated field list is partially redundant with the output schema.
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?
With an output schema present and zero parameters, the description does not need to explain return values, so its coverage is adequate but minimal. It leaves the reader without guidance on how this differs from other scene-inspection siblings or what environment it requires.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so there is nothing to disambiguate and the description correctly introduces no argument semantics. Baseline 4 applies for a parameterless call.
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 names the resource and enumerates exactly what the call surfaces: scene name/file, object and triangle counts, unit, and view/render resolutions. An agent can tell it is a lightweight scene-metadata read. It does not, however, distinguish itself from nearby siblings such as get_scene_tree, list_objects, or keyshot_status, which plausibly overlap.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent can infer this is the cheap 'what scene am I in' call, but the text never says when to prefer it over get_scene_tree or keyshot_status, nor does it state any prerequisite such as an active bridge connection. No exclusions or alternatives are offered.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.