Set selected objects' display color using RGB values or revert to their layer color.
Set the display color for selected objects.
Args:
r, g, b: RGB color components (0-255).
use_layer_color: If True, reset to layer color instead of setting a custom color.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| b | No | ||
| g | No | ||
| r | No | ||
| use_layer_color | 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?
The description discloses the core mutating behavior and usefully explains the use_layer_color mode ('reset to layer color instead of setting a custom color'). However, with no annotations provided, it leaves unstated what happens when no objects are selected, whether the color change is immediate and undoable, and whether it overrides an existing object color override.
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 compact and front-loaded with the action and scope, followed by a minimal, no-filler parameter explanation. Every sentence adds value, and there is no repetition of schema titles or types.
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 parameter semantics are adequately covered and an output schema exists, so return values need not be described. Still, the definition lacks usage context: how the current selection is used, whether RGB values are ignored when use_layer_color=True, and how this tool differs from layer/material color alternatives. For a tool with no annotations, these are meaningful gaps.
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 carry parameter meaning. It does so by explaining all four parameters: RGB components with a 0-255 range and use_layer_color as a reset-to-layer-color mode. It could clarify behavior when use_layer_color is true and RGB values are still supplied, but the default schema values and this explanation are adequate for correct invocation.
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 the specific verb 'Set', the resource 'display color', and the target 'selected objects'. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like rhino_layer_set_color (layer-level color) and rhino_set_object_material (material assignment), so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.
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 given about when to prefer this tool over rhino_layer_set_color, rhino_layer_color, or rhino_set_object_material. It also does not mention prerequisites such as needing an active selection in Rhino or when use_layer_color=True is the right choice versus simply using a layer color tool.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.