Skip to main content
Glama
Aitidi

Cinema4D MCP

by Aitidi
OverviewSchemaSourceRelated ServersDiscussionsAdmin
Python
Local

render_preview

Render the current Cinema 4D view to a base64-encoded preview image, with optional width, height, and frame settings for custom output.

Instructions

Render the current view and return a base64-encoded preview image.

Args:
    width: Optional preview width in pixels
    height: Optional preview height in pixels
    frame: Optional frame number to render

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
frameNo
widthNo
heightNo

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. First observedv0.1.2

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

No annotations are provided, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It does disclose that the result is base64-encoded and that the operation relies on the current view, which suggests a read-only preview. However, it does not explicitly state that the scene is not modified, whether rendering is blocking, or whether any files are written, leaving some behavioral ambiguity.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise and front-loaded, with a clear one-sentence purpose followed by a compact Arg list. There is no filler, and every sentence adds useful information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a simple tool with no required parameters and an output schema, the description covers the operation, parameters, and return encoding well. The main missing piece is guidance on how render_preview relates to render_frame or snapshot_scene, but invocation details are otherwise complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema has 0% description coverage, but the description fully compensates by explaining all three parameters: width and height in pixels, and frame as the frame number to render. It also marks all of them as optional, adding meaning the bare schema does not provide.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a clear verb ('Render'), a clear resource ('the current view'), and a concrete output ('base64-encoded preview image'). It is specific enough to understand the tool's function, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from the sibling render_frame, so it stops short of a top score.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines2/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no guidance about when to use render_preview versus render_frame, snapshot_scene, or other rendering-related siblings. The phrase 'current view' implies a preview use case, but no explicit when-to-use, exclusions, or alternative routing is provided.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

Deploy Server

Other Tools