Create a camera with optional transform and attributes, then activate it to set the viewport and render camera.
Create a camera with optional transform and attributes; activate makes it the viewport and render camera.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | No | ||
| activate | No | ||
| position | No | ||
| rotation | No | ||
| attributes | No |
| 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?
Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds one genuinely useful behavioral fact beyond them — that activate makes the camera both viewport and render camera, i.e. it changes global application state — but says nothing about defaults applied when position/rotation are omitted or how the new camera relates to existing ones.
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 compact sentence that front-loads the action and appends the only notable side effect; nothing is redundant or 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?
An output schema exists, so return values need not be described. For a five-parameter create tool with zero schema descriptions, the entry point and main side effect are covered, though the name parameter and array/attribute shapes remain 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?
Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It does cover four of five parameters loosely (transform = position/rotation, attributes, activate) but never mentions name and gives no format detail for the position/rotation arrays or the accepted keys in attributes.
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?
Uses a specific verb and resource ("Create a camera") and names the optional payload (transform and attributes), so an agent knows exactly what the tool produces. It does not explicitly distinguish itself from camera_set, camera_set_active, or camera_get, but the create semantics are unambiguous.
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?
Usage is only implied from the verb: create a new camera. There is no statement of when to use this versus camera_set_active or camera_set, and no note that activate also switches the viewport/render camera, which is the main decision an agent faces when calling it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.