mcp-for-maya

Overview Schema Source Related Servers Discussions Admin

Camera Create

camera_create

Create a static Maya camera aimed at a target object and framed for a selected shot type—wide, medium, close, over-shoulder, bird’s-eye, or low-angle—without turntable animation.

Instructions

Create a camera positioned for a specific shot type.

Boundary: Disambiguated from camera_orbit (animates a turntable around a point over many frames) — camera_create frames one static shot and adds no animation.

Supports industry-standard shot types: extreme_wide, wide, medium, close, extreme_close, over_shoulder, bird_eye, low_angle.

Tool call template

Replace each placeholder with a value matching the input schema. Only required parameters are included; add optional parameters as needed.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "target": "<target>"
    },
    "name": "camera_create"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`name`	No	Camera name.	CAM_shot
`target`	Yes	Target object name to look at.
`azimuth`	No	Horizontal angle in degrees (default 30).
`elevation`	No	Vertical angle in degrees (default 15).
`shot_type`	No	Shot type (default "medium").	medium
`session_key`	No	Maya session key.

Output Schema

Name	Required	Description	Default
`result`	Yes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedv0.4.1Sep 30, 2026

TDQS

A4.2/5.0

Behavior3/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, idempotentHint=false and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is carried by structured data. The description usefully adds that the result is a single static shot with no animation, but says nothing about the consequence of repeated calls (non-idempotent — duplicate cameras?) or that it mutates the scene.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core action, then the disambiguation boundary, then the supported values — a sensible ordering. It is compact with no filler, though the shot-type list is a bare enumeration that would read better attached to the shot_type parameter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, annotations covering the safety profile, and full parameter descriptions in the schema, the description only needs to establish purpose, scope and the sibling boundary — all of which it does. The remaining gap (behavior on repeated invocation) is minor for a 6-parameter creation tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline would be 3; the description earns extra credit by enumerating the eight valid shot_type values (extreme_wide through low_angle), which the schema does not do — it has zero enums and only says "Shot type (default medium)". Azimuth/elevation/name/target/session_key still get their meaning only from the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ("Create a camera") plus the framing intent ("positioned for a specific shot type"), and immediately distinguishes it from the closest sibling, camera_orbit. An agent can tell the two apart without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The Boundary section explicitly names the alternative (camera_orbit) and the condition that selects it (multi-frame turntable animation vs. one static shot). That is clear routing guidance, though it covers only one of 24 siblings and gives no prerequisites (e.g. session requirements) for invoking this tool.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.