Read the active editor viewport's exposure settings, returning whether exposure is fixed and its EV100 value. Use it to inspect current exposure before adjusting lighting.
Read the current exposure settings of the active editor viewport
Returns: { fixed: bool, ev100: number }
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, non-destructive and a closed world, so safety is covered. The description adds the return contract ({ fixed: bool, ev100: number }), which is meaningful because no output schema exists, though it says nothing about error cases (e.g., no active viewport) or side effects.
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?
Two short lines, front-loaded with the action and resource, then the return shape. No filler or redundancy; every element earns its place.
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 parameterless read tool whose safety profile is fully covered by annotations, the description supplies purpose and the return shape, which is enough to invoke it correctly. It could note failure behavior when no viewport is active, but that is a minor gap.
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 tool takes zero parameters, so the baseline is 4 and there is nothing for the description to clarify. The phrase 'active editor viewport' usefully clarifies that no viewport selector is needed.
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?
States a specific verb and resource ('Read the current exposure settings of the active editor viewport') and scopes it to the active viewport. It does not name its obvious counterpart set_viewport_exposure, so an agent must infer the read/write split from the name alone.
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 says what it does but never indicates when to use it versus alternatives such as get_viewport_state or set_viewport_exposure, nor any preconditions. Usage is only implied by the verb 'Read', which is the bare minimum with no explicit guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.