camera_get
Reads the active SketchUp camera's eye, target, and up vector so you can inspect or sync viewpoint data.
Instructions
Read camera eye, target and up vector.
Input Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Reads the active SketchUp camera's eye, target, and up vector so you can inspect or sync viewpoint data.
Read camera eye, target and up vector.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Input schema / additionalPropertiesAdded value: +falsev1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered elsewhere. The description adds essentially no extra behavioral context—no coordinate system, units, or whether values reflect the active view—so it does little beyond restating a read.
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 eight-word sentence with the verb and the complete return payload front-loaded, and no filler. Nothing could be removed without losing information.
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?
With no output schema, the description carries the burden of describing the return value, and it does so precisely by naming the three vectors returned. Only the coordinate convention and units are left unspecified, a minor gap for a simple getter.
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; the baseline for a parameterless tool is 4.
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?
Names a specific verb (Read) and resource (camera) and enumerates exactly what is returned: eye, target, and up vector. It does not explicitly contrast itself with the sibling camera_set, but the get/set pairing is unambiguous from the name and field list.
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 guidance on when to use this versus alternatives such as camera_set or view_capture, and no stated preconditions (e.g. an active model or scene). The agent must infer usage entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.