Retrieve the camera overlay currently drawn on the LightBurn workspace as a PNG with metadata; it returns the existing in-memory overlay and never starts a new capture.
Requires capability "project". The camera overlay currently drawn on the workspace as a PNG image, plus its metadata. Returns what LightBurn already has in memory; it never triggers a new capture. LightBurn only.
| 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?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden and does well: it discloses the required capability, the drop-in-app restriction, the return content (PNG + metadata), and a key behavioral trait — it is a pure read of in-memory state with no new capture. It stops short of saying what happens when no overlay is drawn (null, empty image, or error), which is the main open question for a caller.
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?
Four short sentences, each carrying distinct information, with the prerequisite front-loaded. The lead-off capability requirement slightly delays the statement of what the tool actually returns, but nothing is padded.
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?
There is no output schema, and the description compensates by naming the return payload (PNG image plus metadata). Combined with the capability gate and the no-recapture guarantee, an agent has enough to call this correctly; only the edge case of a missing overlay is undocumented.
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 there is nothing for the description to disambiguate; baseline 4 applies. No wasted effort explaining a nonexistent schema.
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: returns the camera overlay currently drawn on the workspace as a PNG image plus its metadata. This implicitly differentiates it from the sibling get_camera_overlay_metadata (metadata-only vs. image+metadata), though the distinction is left for the agent to infer rather than stated outright.
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?
Gives an explicit exclusion ("Returns what LightBurn already has in memory; it never triggers a new capture"), which tells the agent not to expect a fresh image, plus a prerequisite ("Requires capability 'project'") and environment restriction ("LightBurn only"). It does not name get_camera_overlay_metadata as the lighter-weight alternative, so routing between the two is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.