Generate a base64 preview image of the current CAD scene or selected entities to visually inspect drawings before export or sharing.
Render current scene or selected entities to a base64 image payload.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| view | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| entity_ids | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden, yet it only discloses the return encoding (base64 image). It says nothing about whether this is a read-only operation, how view/current scene is resolved, performance or image-size implications, or what base64 format (PNG/JPEG) is produced. The output-format note is a small plus against a large gap.
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 with no wasted words, stating scope and output form immediately. It is optimally sized for a one-line tool summary.
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 four-parameter render tool with no annotations, no output schema, and 0% schema description coverage, the description is too thin. An agent cannot confidently determine valid view values, sizing behavior, or entity-selection semantics from what is provided.
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 coverage is 0% and none of the four parameters (view, width, height, entity_ids) are explained. The phrase 'current scene or selected entities' loosely hints that entity_ids selects entities while its absence renders the scene, but view, width, and height carry no meaning from the description or schema.
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 states a specific verb (Render), the input scope (current scene or selected entities), and the output form (base64 image payload). This implicitly distinguishes it from the sibling render_preview_svg, which presumably returns vector SVG rather than a raster image. It is clear but never explicitly names the alternative to sharpen the contrast.
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 gives no when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and never references render_preview_svg or other render/export siblings. An agent must infer from the name alone that this is the raster preview path versus the SVG path.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.