Inspect the currently open SketchUp model to retrieve its file path, units, bounding-box size, entity counts, tags, materials, definitions, scenes, and selected entities.
Overview of the open model: path, units, bounding box size (mm), number of top-level groups/components/ faces/edges, and number of tags, materials, definitions, scenes and selected entities.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
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 openWorldHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description adds value by spelling out the return contents, which matters because there is no output schema to convey what the agent will receive. Not exhaustive (no mention of cost/latency), but a solid contribution beyond annotations.
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, front-loaded sentence that identifies the resource first and then the fields. Every clause earns its place; no filler.
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 output schema, the description carries the burden of describing return values, and it does so comprehensively by enumerating the reported fields. For a zero-parameter read-only introspection tool it is essentially complete; only minor gaps (units of counts, whether counts are recursive) remain.
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 takes zero parameters, so per the rubric the baseline is 4. There is nothing to disambiguate, and the description correctly adds no parameter narrative.
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 clear verb+resource (overview of the open model) and enumerates exactly what it reports: path, units, bounding box size, and counts of groups/components/faces/edges/tags/materials/definitions/scenes/selected entities. This implicitly distinguishes it from detail-oriented siblings like list_tags and list_components by delivering counts rather than listings, though it does not name those alternatives.
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?
Usage is only implied: an agent infers it should call this to get a snapshot of the model. There is no explicit when-to-use statement and no guidance on choosing it over list_tags, list_components, list_materials, or selection_info. Adequate but with a clear gap.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.