Render an animation-approved source into a new final-render version for review and delivery.
Render an animation-approved source into a new final-render version.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| shot_id | Yes | ||
| frame_end | No | ||
| request_id | Yes | ||
| frame_start | No | ||
| project_root | Yes | ||
| resolution_x | No | ||
| resolution_y | No | ||
| source_version | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden, and it does little. It implies a write/mutation that produces a new version, but never discloses that rendering is likely long-running or job-based (the get_job_status/cancel_job siblings hint at async behavior), nor any auth or cost implications.
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 clean, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It is efficient, though for an 8-parameter mutation tool it leans toward under-specification rather than being appropriately sized.
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 complex render/publish operation with 8 parameters, no annotations, and 0% schema coverage, one sentence is far too thin. The output schema covers return values, but nothing explains parameters, preconditions, or the job workflow an agent must orchestrate.
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% across 8 parameters, so the description must compensate and essentially does not. It hints at 'source' (source_version) and 'final-render version', but frame range, resolutions, project_root, and request_id go entirely unexplained.
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 (Render) and resource (a new final-render version) and specifies the input as an 'animation-approved source'. The word 'final' implicitly contrasts with the sibling render_shot_preview, though the distinction is never made explicit.
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 phrase 'animation-approved source' implies a precondition (animation must already be approved), which is useful implied guidance. However, it names no alternative and gives no when-not-to-use conditions versus render_shot_preview or render_character_review.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.