Open CLO3D files (.zprj, .zpac, .avt, .obj, .fbx) using an absolute path; optionally discard unsaved changes when CLO3D prompts.
Open a file in CLO3D. Supports .zprj, .zpac, .avt, .obj, .fbx formats.
Args: file_path: Absolute path to the file to open. discard_unsaved: Drop unsaved changes when CLO asks; otherwise it stops with an error.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | Yes | ||
| discard_unsaved | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Input schema / properties / discard_unsavedAdded value: +{
+ "default": false,
+ "title": "Discard Unsaved",
+ "type": "boolean"
+}v0.5.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose real behavior: discard_unsaved drops pending changes when CLO prompts, otherwise the call fails with an error. It still omits error cases for missing/unreadable files, whether the current project is replaced, and what a successful call returns.
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?
Front-loaded purpose sentence followed by a compact args block; every line adds information. Minor redundancy in restating parameter names already present in the schema.
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 two-parameter tool with no output schema and no annotations, the description covers formats, path requirements, and the side-effect flag adequately. It is incomplete on the relationship to 'import_file' and on the state of the currently open project after the call.
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, and it does: file_path is documented as an absolute path and discard_unsaved's default-false behavior and failure mode are explained. This meaningfully exceeds what the bare schema conveys.
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 a specific verb and resource ('Open a file in CLO3D') and enumerates the supported file formats, which is genuinely informative. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling 'import_file', which an agent would reasonably consider for the same task.
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 explicit when-to-use guidance and no mention of the closely related 'import_file' or 'new_project' alternatives. The only implied usage is that the file must be in one of the listed formats.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.