Insert text into a Rhino model at specified coordinates with adjustable height.
Add a text object via Rhino command.
Args:
text: Text string.
x, y, z: Insertion point.
height: Text height.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| x | No | ||
| y | No | ||
| z | No | ||
| text | Yes | ||
| height | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining side effects, coordinate systems, units, object placement behavior, or whether the command modifies the document. None of these are mentioned beyond a minimal 'add' statement.
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 short and to the point, with no redundant filler. Each parameter is listed compactly. It loses a point for the vague phrase 'via Rhino command', which adds little value.
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?
The description is too sparse to fully equip an agent to use the tool correctly. It omits information about units, text style, layer behavior, return value, and relationship to similar text-creation tools. The presence of an output schema does not compensate for these gaps.
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 description gives one-line meanings for all parameters (text string, insertion point, height), but lacks important semantic details such as units, coordinate system, defaults, allowed ranges, or how height interacts with text size. This is only slightly more informative than a bare schema.
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 clearly states the action ('Add a text object') and the resource ('text object'), and identifies the key parameters. It is slightly generic with 'via Rhino command' but still unambiguous about the tool's core function.
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 related tools such as rhino_text, rhino_add_text, or rhino_text_dot. The agent receives no information about prerequisites, preferred contexts, or alternatives.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.