Fetches the current frame from a specified camera at an optional height, so you can inspect a live view through a read-only authenticated Frigate connection.
The current frame of a camera.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| camera | Yes | ||
| height | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it discloses almost nothing: not the return form (binary image, URL, base64), not whether the frame is cached or fetched live, not what happens for an offline camera. Only the implicit fact that it returns frame data is conveyed.
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?
It is a single short sentence with no padding, so it is not verbose. But the terseness is under-specification rather than efficiency—there is nothing front-loaded beyond a bare resource label.
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 two undocumented parameters, no annotations, and no output schema, the description should at minimum say what comes back and how the resolution parameter affects it. An agent cannot reliably construct the call or handle the response from this text alone.
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% for two parameters, so the description must compensate, and it does not: the expected format of `camera` (name vs id) and the meaning/effect of `height` (default 720, presumably a downscale for the returned image) are left entirely unexplained.
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 names a resource ("the current frame") tied to a camera, so an agent can infer it retrieves the latest image from a given camera. However, it is a noun phrase with no verb and gives no differentiation from siblings like event_snapshot, which plausibly also returns image data.
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 statement of when to use this tool, when to prefer event_snapshot or the event/review tools, or what preconditions apply (camera must exist and be online). Usage must be entirely inferred from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.