Retrieve detailed properties of a Rhino object by its ID, including geometry type, layer, and bounding box. Use this data to inspect or process objects directly.
Get detailed info about a single object (geometry type, layer, bbox, etc.).
| 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 readOnlyHint annotation and the word 'Get' strongly imply that the tool has no side effects. The description does not contradict this, though it does not explicitly state that the object is not modified. Since the annotation already provides the safety signal, the missing explicit statement is not a significant gap.
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, focused sentence with no redundant words or unnecessary details. It clearly communicates the core functionality in a concise manner.
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 sufficient for basic understanding of the tool's purpose, but it omits details about the returned information structure, possible error conditions, and how this tool differs from similarly named sibling tools. Given the simple single-object nature, the description is adequate but not fully complete in context.
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 tool description adds little about parameter semantics. While the schema shows a default for doc_id and an object_id parameter, the description does not explain how object_id is specified or how it interacts with doc_id. The object_id parameter itself lacks a descriptive explanation, and the description's phrase 'single object' only partially covers meaning.
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 states a specific verb ('Get') and a clear resource ('detailed info about a single object'), with concrete examples of the kind of information returned. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.
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 guidance is given for when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_get_object_info or rhino_object_properties_dialog. The description does not clarify selection methods, required identifiers, or typical usage scenarios.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.