omniverse-mcp

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

create_variant_structure

Adds a variant set to a prim, creates empty variant bodies, and sets the default variant to scaffold USD variant structures.

Instructions

Create variant set boilerplate on a prim.

Adds the variant set, creates empty variant bodies, and sets the default.

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`prim_path`	Yes	The prim to add the variant set to
`variant_names`	Yes	The variants to create, e.g. ["focused", "shell"]
`default_variant`	No	The variant selected at first; the first when empty
`variant_set_name`	Yes	The new variant set's name, e.g. "model"

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.2.2Oct 29, 2026

TDQS

A3.5/5.0

Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations show this is a non-destructive write (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false), and the description usefully spells out what actually happens: the variant set is added, empty variant bodies are created, and a default is set. It stops short of stating what happens if the set already exists or whether the prim is modified in place.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the verb and resource, then a single sentence enumerating the three concrete effects. No wasted filler, though the two sentences partially restate the same action.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and all four parameters are fully documented in the schema. The description covers the core behavior adequately; only edge-case behavior (e.g. existing set name collisions) is unaddressed.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each of the four parameters carrying its own description and examples (e.g. variant names, default-variant fallback rule). The description adds virtually no parameter-level meaning beyond that, so the baseline 3 applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Create variant set boilerplate on a prim,' followed by the concrete effects (adds set, creates empty bodies, sets default). An agent can distinguish this from creation vs. selection, though it never names the closest sibling set_variant_selection to sharpen the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance, and no mention of prerequisites such as the prim needing to exist. The nearest alternative (set_variant_selection) and the condition separating them is left entirely to inference.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.