Retrieves selected SketchUp entity details—ID, type, name, tag, material, bounding box, area, volume—so you can inspect and target precise edits or deletions.
Info on the selected entities: id, type, name, tag, material, bounding box (mm), face area (m2), solid volume (m3). The ids are used by the edit/delete tools.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| limit | No | Maximum number of entities returned in detail |
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 safety is covered. The description adds genuinely useful behavioral context by revealing the returned payload (fields, mm/m2/m3 units) and its role as an id source for mutation tools. It omits what happens with an empty selection or how the limit behaves, but that is a minor gap against the annotation coverage.
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?
Two tight sentences: the first front-loads what is returned with explicit units, the second states the practical purpose. No filler or redundancy.
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 return-value burden and does so well by listing fields and units; it also ties the result to edit/delete tools. Missing only edge behavior such as empty selection or limit truncation.
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?
Only one parameter (limit) with 100% schema description coverage, so the schema fully documents it. The description adds nothing about the limit or truncation behavior, making this minimum-viable at the baseline for high coverage.
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?
Names a specific resource (info on the selected entities) and enumerates the exact fields returned with units, so an agent knows precisely what it gets. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from near-neighbors like model_info or quantity_takeoff, though the note linking ids to edit/delete tools hints at its role.
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 line 'The ids are used by the edit/delete tools' implies downstream usage, but the description never states when to pick this over quantity_takeoff, list_components, or model_info. Usage is inferable but not spelled out with alternatives or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.