Capture an Abaqus viewport as base64 image data for direct use in automation, documentation, or visual verification.
Capture an Abaqus viewport as base64 image data.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| timeout | No | ||
| image_format | No | PNG | |
| viewport_name | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions the base64 output but does not clarify side effects, prerequisites, whether a viewport must exist or be displayed, or what happens on failure. The read-only nature is left to inference.
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?
The description is a single, front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It is appropriately concise, though it sacrifices needed detail for brevity.
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 annotations, 0% parameter coverage, an output schema that does not explain invocation semantics, and a nearly identical sibling tool, the description is incomplete. It does not tell the agent how to set viewport, format, or timeout, nor how to distinguish this from 'get_viewport_image'.
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%, and the description does not compensate by explaining any of the three parameters: 'timeout', 'image_format', or 'viewport_name'. It adds no meaning beyond the bare property names and defaults.
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 verb ('capture'), a clear resource ('Abaqus viewport'), and states the output format ('base64 image data'). It is clear on its own, but it does not differentiate from the closely related sibling 'get_viewport_image', so it stops short of 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?
There is no guidance about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as 'get_viewport_image', 'set_viewport_display', or other viewport tools. The description only states what the tool does, not when it should be chosen.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.