FREE multi-camera calibration parameters — intrinsics and extrinsics for the capture rig. Required for any pipeline that reprojects, retriangulates, or renders against the original capture geometry. Returns the .calib file as text.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| lesson_path | No | Lesson path, e.g. 'BJJ/Training/KimuraFromSideControl/Lesson001'. Defaults to first available lesson. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the return format (` .calib` file as text) and the 'FREE' aspect, which adds value. However, it does not mention potential error conditions or explicitly confirm a read-only operation, though the 'get' verb and output format imply this.
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 two sentences, front-loaded with the key phrase 'FREE multi-camera calibration parameters', and every sentence contributes useful information without waste. It achieves a high signal-to-noise ratio.
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 getter with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description covers purpose, usage context, and return format. It could add a note about missing lesson behavior, but the overall completeness is sufficient for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.
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 schema provides 100% coverage for the single optional parameter `lesson_path`, including an example and default behavior. The tool description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.
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 identifies the tool as retrieving multi-camera calibration parameters (intrinsics and extrinsics) for the capture rig, using a specific verb+resource phrasing. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the exact asset (calibration file) and context (reprojection, retriangulation, rendering).
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 explicitly states the tool is 'required' for pipelines that reproject, retriangulate, or render against original capture geometry, providing clear when-to-use context. It does not name alternatives or exclusions, but the use case is unambiguous and distinct from sibling get_* tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
