Export a CLO3D garment as a GLB (binary glTF) file by specifying the absolute output path. Ideal for sharing or using 3D models in other applications.
Export the garment as a GLB (binary glTF) file.
Args: file_path: Absolute path for the exported .glb file. options: Optional export options.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| options | No | ||
| file_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, yet it reveals only the export action itself. It does not disclose overwrite behavior, permission requirements, directory creation, failure modes, or output size. The options field is described only as 'Optional export options,' which is a tautology that adds no behavioral context.
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 two sentences plus an Args block with zero filler, and the core purpose is front-loaded. The Args section slightly duplicates the schema, but it is compact and does not waste words.
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?
With no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema coverage on both parameters, the description is incomplete for an export operation. It leaves the options object entirely undefined, offers no format-selection rationale versus export_gltf, and provides no behavioral context. An agent cannot know what options are valid or what side effects to expect.
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 compensate. It partially does for file_path, adding the useful 'Absolute path' and destination requirement. But options receives only 'Optional export options,' which merely restates the parameter name and the schema's optionality (default null, not required) — no meaning added for the poorly-understood options object.
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 clear verb+resource+format: 'Export the garment as a GLB (binary glTF) file.' Naming 'binary glTF' implicitly distinguishes it from OBJ/FBX and from the JSON-based glTF sibling (export_gltf). However, it does not explicitly call out the export_gltf distinction, which is the closest and most confusable sibling.
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 on when to choose GLB over glTF, OBJ, FBX, or any of the ~10 export siblings present. No exclusions, no context, no alternative names mentioned. An agent gets no help selecting this format over its peers.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.