Groups currently selected objects in Rhino, with an optional name to organize and manage them as a single unit.
Group the currently selected objects.
Args:
name: Optional name for the group. If None, Rhino auto-assigns a name.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | 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?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It only states the action and does not disclose side effects, error conditions (e.g., no selection), or whether the operation is destructive/modifying beyond grouping.
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 concise and to the point, comprising one sentence for the action and one for the parameter. No unnecessary information.
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 tool is simple, and the description covers its core function and parameter. Since an output schema is present, return values are not required in the description. It is complete for an agent to use correctly.
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 explains the sole parameter 'name' fully: 'Optional name for the group. If None, Rhino auto-assigns a name.' This adds meaning beyond the schema which only provides a title and default.
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 ('Group the currently selected objects') with a specific verb and object. It distinguishes from related tools like 'ungroup' and other selection operations.
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 implies usage (i.e., when you need to group selected objects), but it does not explicitly mention alternatives or when not to use this tool. No explicit 'when' or 'when-not' guidance is provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.