Retrieve all layers from a Rhino document with their color, visibility, and object count. Specify a document by ID, or use 'active' for the current file to review layer properties.
List all layers with their properties (color, visibility, object count).
| 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 already declare readOnlyHint=true, and the description consistently describes a read-only operation. It adds useful scope information ('all layers') and enumerates the returned properties, but does not disclose behaviors like document selection fallback or return format.
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?
One sentence, front-loaded with the verb and resource, and no filler. Every word contributes to understanding what the tool does.
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 description is complete enough for a simple read-only list tool with one documented parameter and an existing output schema. It could be improved by explicitly routing the agent away from related layer/list siblings, but that is a minor gap given the schema and readOnlyHint.
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 single parameter doc_id is documented in the input schema with 'Document handle id; active targets the current document.' The tool description adds no additional parameter semantics, so the schema carries the burden and the baseline 3 applies.
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 ('List') and resource ('all layers'), and names the returned properties (color, visibility, object count), making the tool's function clear. However, it does not explicitly contrast with closely related siblings like rhino_cmd_layer_list or rhino_layer_count.
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 when-to-use guidance or alternatives are provided. Given the large set of layer-related sibling tools, an agent is left to infer when this read-only listing tool should be chosen over rhino_layer_count, rhino_cmd_layer_list, or rhino_list_objects.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.