Set a layer's display color in Rhino by providing its name and RGB values (0-255).
Set a layer's display color.
Args:
name: Layer name.
r, g, b: RGB color components (0-255).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| b | No | ||
| g | No | ||
| r | No | ||
| name | Yes |
| 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?
There are no annotations, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the mutation ('Set') and the RGB range, but does not explain whether the layer must already exist, whether the tool creates it, what happens on failure, or any side effects. The behavioral context is minimal beyond what the name already implies.
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 front-loaded with the purpose, followed by a compact Args list. Every line serves a purpose and there is no redundant filler. The formatting is clear, though the Args section reads a bit tersely.
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?
Given that this is a mutation tool with no annotations and no mention of prerequisites or error behavior, the description is not fully complete. It tells the agent what to set and how to supply the values, but not what to expect if the layer is missing, whether the layer is created automatically, or how success is reported. Having an output schema helps with return values, but the behavioral context is still thin.
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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate, and it does. It explains that 'name' is the layer name and that r, g, b are RGB color components in the 0-255 range. This adds meaningful semantics beyond the raw schema fields, though it could be more explicit about defaults or the role of each channel individually.
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 a specific verb and resource: 'Set a layer's display color.' This is unambiguous about what the tool does. However, it does not differentiate from the sibling tool rhino_layer_set_color, which likely performs the same operation, so it falls short of a 5.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_layer_set_color, rhino_set_object_color, or rhino_layer_visible. The description only states the action and parameters, leaving the agent to infer when this tool is appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.