Control layer visibility in Rhino by specifying a layer name and a visible state. Set visible to true to show the layer or false to hide it.
Show or hide a layer.
Args:
name: Layer name.
visible: True to show, False to hide.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| visible | 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It states the core action but does not mention side effects, whether the layer must already exist, whether the change is reversible, or whether other layer properties (like lock state) are unaffected. The description adds little beyond the direct action.
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 extremely concise and efficiently structured: a one-sentence action statement followed by parameter definitions. There is no redundant or extraneous text, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 visibility setter, the description is largely sufficient: it defines the action and both parameters, and an output schema is present. Minor gaps remain, such as behavior when the named layer doesn't exist and whether any side effects occur, but the low complexity keeps these from being critical.
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%, but the description compensates by explaining both parameters: 'name: Layer name' and 'visible: True to show, False to hide.' The visible parameter's boolean mapping is genuinely useful and clarifies the tool's behavior, though the name description is mostly a restatement.
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 starts with 'Show or hide a layer,' which is a specific verb and resource. It clearly differentiates this tool from layer-related siblings like rhino_layer_lock, rhino_layer_rename, and rhino_layer_create by focusing solely on visibility.
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 the usage scenario: call this tool when you need to change a layer's visibility. However, it provides no explicit guidance about when not to use it, no mention of alternatives like rhino_show_selected or rhino_hide_selected, and no conditions or prerequisites are stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.