Retrieve a model's properties including transform, bounding box, supports, and lock state by providing its model ID. Use this to inspect or verify model configuration in a Formlabs scene.
Get one model's properties: transform, bounding box, supports, lock state.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| model_id | Yes | ||
| scene_id | No | Scene id; omit for the default scene | default |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.4Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by specifying the exact returned property set, which is useful behavioral/return information. It does not cover missing-model error behavior, but that is minor for a simple read operation.
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 sentence that front-loads the verb and resource, then lists the exact properties. There is no filler or redundant information.
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 simple read-only tool with two parameters and safety annotations, the description covers the return contents and the schema covers parameter definitions. A note about scene_id's role or missing-model behavior would improve completeness, but nothing critical is absent.
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?
Only scene_id has a schema description; model_id is undocumented. The tool description does not clarify model_id's format, source, or relationship to scene_id, so it fails to compensate for the 50% schema description coverage gap.
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?
Description uses a specific verb ('Get') and resource ('one model's properties') and enumerates the exact properties returned: transform, bounding box, supports, lock state. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_scene, get_user, or get_device.
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 intended use is implied by the resource name and the explicit 'one model' phrasing, but the description gives no when-to-use guidance or exclusions versus siblings. It does not mention alternatives such as get_scene or list_scenes, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.