List all shapes in a CAD workspace with volume, surface area, edge count, and validity status, confirming each shape's actual geometry rather than relying on its name.
Semua bentuk di ruang CAD ini berikut volume, luas, jumlah tepi, dan apakah bentuknya sah — bukan cuma namanya.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ruang | No | Nama ruang kerja; tiap ruang punya adegan.blend sendiri. | utama |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.6.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds useful behavioral context by disclosing that the tool returns all shapes with computed metrics and validity, though it does not cover performance, failure modes, or whether metrics are computed on demand.
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 compact sentence that leads with the object and packs the output fields into one list. There is no filler or repetition of schema or annotation information.
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 read-only, one-optional-parameter listing tool, the description covers the essential return values (all shapes plus volume, area, edge count, and validity). It does not specify output format or behavior for an unknown room, but the annotations and schema cover safety and the parameter, leaving only minor 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 100%; the sole 'ruang' parameter is already described in the schema as the workspace name with its own scene file. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning, so the baseline score of 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 conveys that the tool enumerates all shapes in the current CAD space and returns derived properties (volume, area, edge count, validity) rather than only names. It identifies the resource and result content clearly, but relies on the tool name 'daftar' for the verb and does not explicitly differentiate sibling tools.
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?
There is no direct guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rupa_cad_bentuk, rupa_cad_ukur, or rupa_lihat. The phrase 'bukan cuma namanya' hints at a richer option than a name-only listing, but no alternative or exclusion condition is named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.