Export a SketchUp view as PNG or JPG to visually verify model appearance, geometry, materials, and camera framing.
Export PNG/JPG from SketchUp for visual verification.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| path | Yes | ||
| width | No | ||
| height | No | ||
| model_id | No | ||
| overwrite | No | ||
| active_path | No | ||
| transparent | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.3.1Input schema / properties / active_pathAdded value: +{
+ "items": {
+ "exclusiveMinimum": 0,
+ "maximum": 9007199254740991,
+ "minimum": -9007199254740991,
+ "type": "integer"
+ },
+ "maxItems": 32,
+ "type": "array"
+}Input schema / properties / model_idAdded value: +{
+ "minLength": 1,
+ "type": "string"
+}v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already declare the safety profile (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, idempotentHint=false, openWorldHint=false). The description adds no behavioral context beyond that: it doesn't mention that a file is written to disk, the overwrite policy implied by the schema, or permission/format constraints. With 7 parameters and an overwrite flag, more disclosure was expected.
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 front-loaded sentence with zero filler. It is efficiently written, though its brevity borders on under-specification for a 7-parameter export tool.
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 tool with 7 parameters, 0% schema coverage, and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent gets no guidance on required vs optional arguments, output location, resolution bounds, or overwrite behavior.
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% across 7 parameters, so the description must compensate and does not. It mentions only the image formats, saying nothing about path, width/height bounds, model_id, overwrite, active_path, or transparent.
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 (Export) and resource (PNG/JPG from SketchUp) plus an intent (visual verification), so the core action is unambiguous. However, it does nothing to distinguish itself from close siblings like view_capture or model_export, so an agent cannot tell why it would pick this one over those without opening schemas.
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 phrase 'for visual verification' hints at intent but gives no conditions for when to use this versus view_capture, model_snapshot, or model_export. No prerequisites, no exclusions, no alternative named.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.