Render the active Cinema 4D frame to an image file. Set output path, width, and height to control the saved result.
Render the current frame.
Args:
output_path: Optional path to save the rendered image
width: Optional render width in pixels
height: Optional render height in pixels
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| output_path | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are providedhare and the description gives minimal behavioral context. It doesn't state whether the render writes to disk by default, whether it is a side-effectful operation, what happens if output_path is omitted, or whether it blocks until completion.
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 one clear sentence plus a tidy parameter list with each argument explained. It front-loads the core purpose and contains no filler.
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?
The description does not explain how this tool relates to render_preview, when to choose this over other render/snapshot options, or what the output schema represents. Given the presence of a closely-named sibling and an output schema, the description lacks critical context for tool selection and invocation.
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 Arg block adds meaning beyond the bare schema: it explains output_path as a save location and width/height as pixel dimensions, which is not evident from the schema alone. It doesn't document defaults or constraints, but since all parameters are optional, that's acceptable.
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 states the action ('Render') and object ('the current frame'), making the tool's purpose easy to grasp. However, it does not explicitly differentiate itself from the sibling render_preview tool, which could be confused with this one.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use render_frame versus render_preview or other rendering alternatives. The context is implied by the name, but the description provides no exclusions or selection criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.