Retrieve engine PNG previews for queued captures by request ID, or return initial or post-interaction images from a completed playcheck.
Return an engine PNG. Retry queued captures with their request_id.
For a completed playcheck with captures, view='before' returns the initial image; the default returns the post-interaction image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view | No | studio | |
| asset_id | No | ||
| request_id | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the output format (PNG) and the retry-queued-captures behavior, which is useful, but says nothing about failure modes, what happens with an invalid asset_id, or whether the call blocks on queued work.
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 short, front-loaded sentences with the core output stated first and the conditional view semantics after. No padding, though the playcheck-specific wording assumes context the agent may lack.
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 3-parameter tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description covers the primary purpose and some view/request_id behavior, but leaves asset_id undocumented and the interplay with get_studio_preview unresolved. Adequate but with clear gaps.
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. It partially does by explaining view='before' versus the default post-interaction image and the request_id retry path, but it omits asset_id entirely and never mentions the schema's default view value of 'studio', leaving one parameter fully undocumented.
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?
"Return an engine PNG" states a specific verb and output, and the note about retrying queued captures clarifies the secondary function. However, it never distinguishes itself from the sibling get_studio_preview, so an agent may not know which preview tool to pick.
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 implies usage via 'Retry queued captures with their request_id' and the playcheck/view='before' scenario, but it never states when to prefer this over get_studio_preview or when a request_id is actually required. Usage is inferable rather than explicit.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.