Save the current Cinema 4D scene state to a file, optionally including external assets, for later restoration or sharing.
Create a snapshot of the current scene state.
Args:
file_path: Optional path to save the snapshot
include_assets: Whether to include external assets in the snapshot
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| file_path | No | ||
| include_assets | 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 provided, so the description must carry the side-effect/safety burden. It does not state whether the snapshot modifies the current scene, whether it overwrites existing files, or what happens when file_path is omitted. The only behavioral hint is that external assets can optionally be included.
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 short, direct, and each sentence adds information: the purpose, the save path, and the asset-inclusion option. There is no fluff or irrelevant detail.
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 gives the core action and clarifies the two parameters, but it omits how a snapshot differs from 'save_scene', what happens when no file_path is supplied, and whether the operation is destructive or reversible. Given the large sibling set, an agent may struggle to pick this tool confidently.
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 schema provides only names and defaults with 0% coverage, but the description adds meaningful glosses: file_path is an optional save location, and include_assets toggles external asset inclusion. This is useful semantic content beyond raw parameter names.
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 action ('Create a snapshot') and a target ('the current scene state'), so an agent can tell it is a capture operation. However, 'snapshot' is not clearly distinguished from siblings like 'save_scene' or 'render_frame', so it is not a full differentiation.
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 guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'save_scene', 'load_scene', or 'get_scene_info'. No conditions, prerequisites, or exclusions are provided.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.