Capture the current editor viewport and interface as a PNG image without moving the camera. Use this to document or share the exact visual state.
Capture the actual current editor viewport and interface as PNG. Does not move the camera.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| sessionId | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the operation read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds value by guaranteeing 'Does not move the camera' and specifying the captured content is the live 'actual current' viewport, which is behavior not encoded in the annotations. It does not disclose delivery mechanics, but the safety profile is covered.
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?
Two short sentences, action first, no filler; every phrase ('actual current', 'as PNG', 'does not move the camera') adds information. It is model concision.
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 one-parameter read-only capture, the core behavior is clear and annotations cover side effects, so the description is adequate. However, there is no output schema and the description does not say how the PNG is returned (path, data URL, etc.) or relate sessionId to the captured viewport, leaving non-trivial gaps.
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%, yet the description never mentions sessionId or explains which session it refers to. The parameter's name and 32-hex pattern are the only clues; the tool description does not compensate for the missing schema help.
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 uses a specific action ('Capture') and resource ('actual current editor viewport and interface') with an explicit format ('PNG'). The camera note further clarifies it is a non-mutating screenshot, which separates it from sibling tools like export_map and get_editor_state.
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?
No when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance is provided; it never names alternatives or conditions that would select capture_view over export_map or get_editor_state. The camera note is a behavioral guarantee, not a usage rule.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.