Group selected Grasshopper components into a named cluster, organizing canvas geometry and logic into reusable bundles for cleaner definitions.
Group components into a named cluster.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
readOnlyHint: false already signals mutation, and the description's action (grouping components into a cluster) is consistent with that annotation, so there is no contradiction. However, the description adds little beyond the annotation: it does not disclose side effects on the original components, whether it operates on the active GH definition, or reversibility via gh_cluster_expand.
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 7-word sentence with zero filler and the verb front-loaded, making it very economical. It borders on under-specification given the 0% schema coverage, but unlike a tautology it conveys real semantic content.
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 the mutation annotation covering safety, the description does not need to explain return values or read-only status. Still missing are operational context such as prerequisites (an open GH canvas), how to obtain valid component_ids, and the tool's relationship to gh_cluster_expand, leaving the definition at minimum viable for a simple 2-parameter tool.
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%, so the description must compensate for documenting the parameters. It only implicitly maps 'components' to component_ids and 'named' to name; it does not explain what format component_ids take, how to source them (e.g., from gh_component_list), or that both parameters are required. The compensation is minimal.
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 states a specific verb (Group), resource (components), and outcome (a named cluster), so an agent can tell this creates a Grasshopper cluster. However, it does not explicitly differentiate from the inverse sibling gh_cluster_expand or from Rhino grouping tools like rhino_group and rhino_group_selected.
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?
No guidance is given on when to use this tool versus alternatives, no prerequisites are mentioned (e.g., active GH document), and no reference is made to the inverse operation gh_cluster_expand. The only implied usage is what the tool name itself suggests, so the description provides effectively no routing help.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.