Retrieve the material assigned to specified objects, or to the current selection if none are given. Use this to inspect or verify material properties in 3ds Max.
读取一个或多个对象当前使用的材质详情。省略对象则使用当前选择。 [English] Read the material currently assigned to one or more objects. Omit objects to use the current selection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| objects | No | 对象名列表；省略则使用当前选择。 | Object names; omit to use the current selection. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is clear. The description adds the selection fallback behavior, but it does not disclose what 'material details' will be returned or how multiple objects sharing materials are handled. This is useful but not deeply transparent.
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 compact, front-loads the core operation, and includes a single important usage rule. The bilingual duplication is justified and adds no unnecessary complexity.
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 simple read-only operation with one optional parameter, the description provides enough information to invoke the tool correctly. However, there is no output schema and the phrase 'material details' is somewhat vague about the exact return shape, so a small completeness gap remains.
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%, and the description largely repeats the parameter information already present: object names, optional, defaults to current selection. The description adds no meaningful semantic detail beyond the schema, so the baseline 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 clearly states a specific verb and resource: read the material currently assigned to one or more objects. It also specifies the selection fallback. However, it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling mat_get, leaving some potential ambiguity for an agent choosing between similar material-reading 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?
The description gives a clear usage pattern: provide objects when targeting specific ones, or omit them to use the current selection. It does not mention when to prefer this tool over alternatives, but the selection fallback rule is useful and actionable.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.