Retrieve a curve's parametric domain and approximate length in Rhino. Input a curve GUID to get its measurement data for design validation or automation.
Return the curve's parametric domain and approximate length.
| 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 description discloses that the length is approximate, which is a behavioral nuance. The read-only and idempotent annotations cover side-effect safety, lowering the bar for the description. No contradictions exist.
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, dense sentence with no redundant words. It efficiently conveys the tool's purpose and output.
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 query tool, the description is sufficient. It implies the curve is an existing object, and the output schema provides return-type details, so the description need not elaborate on the result structure. It lacks explicit mention of edge cases, but these are minor for this kind of function.
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 input schema has no parameter descriptions (0% coverage) and the description itself provides no information about the expected parameter (e.g., its type, name, or how to reference the curve). Agents have to infer the parameter entirely from the tool name.
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 ('Return') and the specific outputs: the curve's parametric domain and approximate length. This unambiguously distinguishes it from creation or modification tools.
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 other curve-query or measurement tools. It does not mention any prerequisites, conditions, or alternative tools for different scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.