Create a PNG image of the active Fusion design view, save it to renders/, and return base64 for inspection or sharing.
PNG в renders/ и base64 в ответе.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| colors | No | ||
| objects | No | ||
| save_to | No | ||
| width_px | No | ||
| clip_axis | No | ||
| direction | No | iso | |
| height_px | No | ||
| clip_at_mm | No | ||
| highlights | No | ||
| azimuth_deg | No | ||
| elevation_deg | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v2.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is covered. The description does add two useful behavioral facts beyond the annotations: a file is written into renders/ and the same image is returned inline as base64. It says nothing about camera defaults, resolution handling, or failure behavior.
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 single sentence is compact and wastes no words, but that brevity comes from under-specification rather than tight editing – there is no structure for an agent to parse beyond the output statement.
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 an 11-parameter tool with no output schema, no parameter descriptions anywhere, and a terse non-English fragment, the definition omits almost everything an agent needs to call it 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?
Eleven parameters with 0% schema description coverage (colors, objects, save_to, width_px, height_px, direction, azimuth_deg, elevation_deg, clip_axis, clip_at_mm, highlights) and the description gives no meaning, format, or defaults for any of them. This is the largest gap.
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 only names the output artifacts ('PNG в renders/ и base64 в ответе') and never states the subject of the render – a 2D view, 3D view, or drawing of the design. It largely restates the name 'render_view' plus delivery format, so an agent cannot tell what it produces beyond a PNG.
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?
There is no when-to-use guidance, no mention of alternatives among the many sibling visualization/inspection tools (measure, cross_sections, inspect_part, export), and no preconditions stated.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.