MPFB MCP

Official

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

mpfb_get_material_settings

Read-onlyIdempotent

Read a MakeHuman character's procedural material settings to inspect eyes, skin, and color adjustments before changing them. Reports linked sockets and shared materials; changes nothing.

Instructions

Read a MakeHuman character's procedural material settings - exactly what mpfb_save_preset saves for them - for mpfb_set_material_settings to change. Changes nothing.

result has three sections: eyes (procedural eyes), skin (the LAYERED skin) and color_adjustments (one record per mesh asset, for the MakeSkin node on its Base Color). One that does not apply says applies: false and a reason. section ("eyes", "skin" or "color_adjustments") reads one and reports the others as null; a full answer can pass 20 KB.

Per node - the eyes, each group in skin.groups (keyed color, body, face, ... as the preset keys them), each colour adjustment - keyed by MPFB's own socket names:

settings: each value as the preset holds it, a float or a colour as four scene-linear RGBA numbers. A write takes these as is.
srgb_hex: #rrggbb per colour socket, derived for reading only.
ranges: [min, max] where a float declares one, null for an open end; values_outside_range names any value already outside.
linked: sockets driven by another node (from_node, from_socket), which a write cannot change. Most layered region colours are linked from the color group.
material_shared_with: other objects a write would change too.

A colour adjustment record also has object_name, object_type, uuid (the preset's key) and node_name: diffuseIntensity, or on an asset with an AO map aoMix, whose only writable socket is the AO strength - MPFB saves that node, and the tint is out of reach. The eyes never keep one. An unresolved subject is found: false.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No
`section`	No

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
No arguments

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.1.0Oct 3, 2026

TDQS

A4.6/5.0

Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: the three result sections, the `applies:false`+`reason` convention, the null-for-other-sections behavior, the ~20 KB payload warning, linked sockets that writes cannot change, and shared materials that a write would also affect. This is well beyond what the annotations carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long and dense, but the core purpose is front-loaded and each subsequent block (result sections, per-node keys, color-adjustment record) earns its place given the tool's complexity. Some nesting/bullet detail is verbose but not wasted.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Despite an output schema existing, the description documents the return shape in depth (sections, per-node keys, linked sockets, ranges, color-adjustment fields), which is essential for a read tool whose output drives a subsequent write. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must carry both params. `section` is fully explained (valid values, that it reads one section and nulls the others). `name` is only indirectly characterized via 'the preset's key' and 'an unresolved subject is found:false', leaving its exact semantics slightly inferential, but the compensation is largely effective.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The opening sentence gives a specific verb (read), resource (procedural material settings), and scope, explicitly anchoring it to the sibling `mpfb_save_preset` and the counterpart `mpfb_set_material_settings`. 'Changes nothing' removes any ambiguity about mutation, and an agent can distinguish this from set_material_settings/save_preset without opening a schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It states its role in the read-modify-write workflow ('exactly what mpfb_save_preset saves ... for mpfb_set_material_settings to change'), which effectively tells the agent when to reach for it. It stops short of explicit when-not conditions or a direct alternative comparison, but the context is clear.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.