Configure Blender cameras by setting focal length, sensor width, clip start/end, and depth-of-field properties.
Set camera property: focal_length, sensor_width, clip_start, clip_end, dof_use, dof_focus_distance, dof_aperture_fstop.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| name | Yes | ||
| value | Yes | ||
| property | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0+hardened.2Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The idempotentHint annotation already signals that repeated calls with the same arguments are safe. The description adds minimal behavioral context by implying a single-property mutation on a camera, but it does not disclose failure behavior for invalid properties, value constraints, or side effects beyond the property change.
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 focused sentence with no filler. The supported property list is front-loaded immediately after the action, making the core information immediately accessible.
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 simple property setter with an output schema and idempotentHint annotation, the description covers the basic invocation surface. However, it lacks detail on value semantics, prerequisites, and relationships to DOF-related sibling tools, leaving room for incorrect calls when the agent needs non-obvious values.
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%, so the description must carry the parameter semantics. It usefully enumerates the allowed property strings and hints at value categories (e.g., dof_use is boolean, focal_length is numeric), but it does not specify units, ranges, per-property value types, or the meaning of the 'name' parameter.
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 clearly identifies the verb ('Set') and resource ('camera property'), and enumerates the accepted property names, making the tool's scope unambiguous. It does not explicitly differentiate itself from sibling tools like setup_camera_dof, but the list of properties makes the intended use reasonably clear.
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 is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as setup_camera_dof, batch_set_property, or set_active_camera. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or conditional recommendations, so the agent must infer usage from the tool name alone.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.