Explodes a block instance into individual Rhino objects, replacing it with its component geometry for direct editing without altering the block definition.
Explode a block instance into individual objects (bridge only).
| 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?
The annotations only declare readOnlyHint=false, so the description bears the burden of explaining side effects. It does not disclose that the default behavior destroys or replaces the original block instance, nor does it explain the meaning of 'bridge only'. The keep_instance parameter is described in the schema but not reflected in the tool description, leaving the agent without a clear behavioral contract.
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 tight sentence with no filler. It front-loads the action and resource, and the 'bridge only' qualifier is concise but informative. 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?
This is a mutating tool with no destructive hint, minimal parameter guidance in the description, and near-identical siblings like rhino_explode and rhino_explode_block. The description does not explain default replacement behavior, what 'bridge only' means practically, or how to choose this over alternatives. The output schema removes the need to describe return values, but the selection and behavior guidance is still incomplete.
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 schema description coverage is 0%, and the tool description adds no parameter-level meaning. The input schema itself does document instance_id, doc_id, and keep_instance, but the description does not compensate for the low coverage. Given the rule that low schema coverage requires more descriptive support, this is a meaningful 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?
The description uses a specific verb and resource: it explodes a block instance into individual objects, which makes the core purpose clear. The 'bridge only' qualifier adds scope information. However, it does not explicitly differentiate this from the sibling tools rhino_explode or rhino_explode_block, so the distinction is largely left to the naming and schema.
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 explicit guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives. The phrase 'bridge only' hints at an environment constraint, but there is no mention of when rhino_explode or rhino_explode_block would be more appropriate. The agent must infer usage context from the name and schema.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.