renforge_inspect_imageOpen a local image and return an optional cropped or zoomed PNG for inspection. Use crop and scale parameters to inspect specific regions.
Open a local image and return an optional cropped/zoomed PNG for inspection.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scale | No | ||
| crop_x | No | ||
| crop_y | No | ||
| crop_width | No | ||
| image_path | Yes | ||
| crop_height | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.7.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations exist, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return artifact (PNG) and that cropping/zooming are optional, but says nothing about file-system access, path expectations, whether the PNG is written to disk or returned inline, or any size/format limits.
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 no waste; the verb and return value come first. It is efficient, though the brevity contributes to the gaps in the other dimensions rather than serving completeness.
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, no output schema, and 6 undocumented parameters, the description is too thin for the tool's complexity. An agent cannot determine crop coordinate semantics or where the resulting PNG goes without trial and error.
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 coverage is 0% across 6 parameters, so the description must compensate and largely does not. It gestures at crop and zoom, loosely mapping to scale/crop_x/crop_y/crop_width/crop_height, but gives no units (pixels vs normalized), no meaning for default 0 crop values, and no explanation of image_path handling.
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 and resource ('Open a local image') plus the return type ('optional cropped/zoomed PNG'). It implicitly separates itself from siblings like renforge_screenshot or renforge_find_image_on_screen by scoping to local files, but never explicitly names an alternative.
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 only guidance is the trailing 'for inspection,' which gives no condition for choosing this over renforge_inspect_screen, renforge_screenshot, or renforge_diff_screenshots. No prerequisites, no when-not-to-use.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.