Capture the current viewport at a specified width and height while preserving the camera direction, enabling direct image capture for documentation or sharing.
Capture the current viewport without changing its direction.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | No | ||
| height | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does disclose that the tool should not change the viewport's direction, which is meaningful. However, it does not state whether the tool returns an image, whether any model/document state is touched, or whether width and height change the viewport or only the output size.
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 a single focused sentence with no filler or repetition. The core intent is front-loaded, and the clause 'without changing its direction' is non-redundant behavioral detail that 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?
The description gives the core behavior and is minimally sufficient for a tool with no required parameters and defaults provided. However, with no output schema and silent width/height semantics, an agent cannot fully anticipate the return value or how the capture size behaves.
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 description coverage is 0%, and the description never mentions width or height. The agent gets no help from the description about what these parameters affect, how they relate to the viewport capture, or what will happen if they are omitted.
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 ('capture') with a specific resource ('the current viewport') and adds the behavioral qualifier 'without changing its direction.' It is clear and identifiable, though it does not explicitly differentiate against the other fusion_* sibling tools.
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 implies a basic use case but provides no explicit guidance about when to choose this tool, when not to use it, or which alternative tools might be more appropriate. With a large sibling list like the fusion_* tools, such routing context is useful and is missing here.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.