Import external files into the active Rhino document. For non-3DM formats, a bridge is required to complete the import.
Import an external file into the active document (bridge required for non-3DM).
| 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?
Annotations only provide readOnlyHint=false, so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It mentions the bridge requirement but does not describe what happens on import, whether existing objects are affected, supported file behavior, or failure modes. No contradiction with annotations, but disclosure is thin.
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 economical sentence with the key verb and target front-loaded. It is not bloated, though it sacrifices useful detail for brevity.
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?
There is an output schema, so return-value detail is not required, but an importer with path, doc_id, and object_ids needs more context on supported formats and how those parameters relate to importing. The bridge note is helpful, but critical operational context is missing.
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 adds no parameter-level meaning and schema coverage is 0%. The schema itself is confusing for an import tool: object_ids is described as 'Restrict export; default = all,' which sounds like export rather than import behavior. The description should compensate but does not.
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?
States a specific action ('Import') and resource ('external file' into 'active document'), so the core purpose is clear. It also adds the bridge requirement for non-3DM. However, it does not differentiate from close siblings like rhino_cmd_import or rhino_import_ifc.
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 when-to-use guidance or comparison with alternatives is provided. The bridge note hints at a prerequisite, but nothing says when to prefer this over rhino_import_ifc, rhino_cmd_import, or rhino_open. The agent is left to infer selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.