Retrieve garment metadata as JSON from CLO3D, including pattern details, fabric assignments, and measurements. Use this tool to export structured project data for inspection or further processing.
Export and retrieve garment metadata as JSON, including pattern details, fabric assignments, and measurements.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It says 'export and retrieve' which hints at read-like operation but does not clarify whether any side effects occur (e.g., writing to disk), nor does it mention permissions, rate limits, or reversibility. The term 'metadata' suggests a non-destructive intent but this is not explicit.
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?
A single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the core action and resource, then details the content. Every word contributes value; there is no redundancy or irrelevant detail.
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 lists the returned content but does not specify the scope of 'garment' — for example, whether it refers to the currently open project, a selected garment, or all garments. Given the absence of parameters and output schema, this ambiguity could confuse an agent. However, the tool is simple, so the description is mostly complete but leaves this key context unclear.
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 has zero parameters, so schema coverage is trivially 100%. Per the baseline rule for 0 parameters, this dimension is satisfied. The description adds no parameter-specific meaning because there are none, but it does not need to.
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 ('Export and retrieve') and a distinct resource ('garment metadata') with specific content (pattern details, fabric assignments, measurements). It differentiates from sibling tools like get_pattern_info and get_fabric_info by targeting the garment-level aggregate, making the tool's purpose unambiguous.
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?
The description implies usage for obtaining overall garment data but does not explicitly state when to prefer this over pattern-specific or fabric-specific tools. No alternative names or exclusion conditions are given, leaving the decision to inference.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.