Retrieve the Tripo API host, output directory, and server version to verify and debug your configuration.
Show the Tripo API host, output directory and server version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| version | Yes | ||
| base_url | Yes | ||
| output_dir | Yes | ||
| catalog_checked_on | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.4.0Output schema / properties / backendRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / properties / base_urlAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / catalog_checked_onAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / properties / outputDirRemoved value: -{
- "type": "string"
-}Output schema / properties / output_dirAdded value: +{
+ "type": "string"
+}Output schema / requiredPrevious value: -[
- "backend",
- "outputDir",
- "version"
-]New value: +[
+ "base_url",
+ "output_dir",
+ "version",
+ "catalog_checked_on"
+]Does 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 the field list but does not explain why idempotentHint=false on an apparently static read (mutable host/version), which is the one behavior an agent might be surprised by.
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 with the returned fields front-loaded and no filler. Every word 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?
With an output schema present, return values need not be explained in prose, and a parameterless read-only tool needs little else. The description is sufficient, lacking only a hint about when this call is worthwhile.
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 for the description to disambiguate. Baseline 4 applies; no parameter information is missing or misleading.
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?
Specific verb ('Show') plus a named resource ('config') with the exact fields enumerated: Tripo API host, output directory, server version. An agent can immediately distinguish it from get_usage and get_balance, which report different data.
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 description says what is returned but never says when to call it — no trigger condition (e.g., before constructing requests or diagnosing environment issues) and no relationship to siblings. For a diagnostic endpoint, the absence of any context is a missed opportunity rather than an error.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.