Capture the active 3ds Max viewport to a PNG and return its file path and dimensions; set max_size to limit the longer edge or 0 to keep full resolution.
Grab the active viewport to a PNG file and return its path and size. path defaults to %TEMP%/max-mcp/capture_.png. max_size limits the longer edge (0 = keep the viewport resolution).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | No | ||
| max_size | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.2.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the default output path timestamp pattern and how max_size affects resolution, plus that it returns path and size. However, it omits whether files are overwritten, permission needs for the target directory, or failure behavior when no viewport is active.
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?
Three tight sentences with the core action front-loaded and zero filler. The default path and size semantics follow logically. Slightly more structure (e.g., explicit param labeling) could help but nothing is wasted.
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?
An output schema exists, so return value explanation isn't required, and both optional parameters are documented with defaults. For a simple, side-effect-light capture tool this is nearly complete; only edge-case behavior (no active viewport, unwritable path) is unaddressed.
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%, so the description must compensate, and it does: it explains path's default (%TEMP%/max-mcp/capture_<timestamp>.png) and that max_size limits the longer edge with 0 meaning keep viewport resolution. Both undocumented parameters gain meaningful semantics beyond the bare 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+resource: 'Grab the active viewport to a PNG file'. The resource (viewport capture) is inherently distinct from all listed siblings, which are query/script/inspection tools. It doesn't explicitly name a sibling to differentiate, which keeps it from a 5.
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 usage (capture the current viewport for visual inspection) but never states when to use this versus siblings like max_info or max_query_objects. There are no exclusions or alternatives named, so usage is only implied.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.