Move, rotate, and adjust the active camera in Godot by setting position, rotation, field of view, or 2D zoom. Use this tool to frame scenes precisely.
Move or rotate the active camera
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| fov | No | Field of view for Camera3D | |
| zoom | No | {x,y} zoom for Camera2D | |
| position | No | {x,y} or {x,y,z} for camera position | |
| rotation | No | {x,y,z} rotation in degrees |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations present, the description carries the full behavioral burden, but it only states the basic mutation ('move or rotate'). It does not disclose that fov and zoom can also be set, that both Camera2D and Camera3D are supported, whether values are applied immediately, how unspecified parameters are handled, or any required precondition such as an existing active camera.
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 compact sentence with no filler, and the core verb comes first. It loses a point for being so terse that it omits the fov and zoom behaviors, though that is more a completeness issue than a conciseness one.
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?
The tool has four optional parameters, nested objects, no output schema, and no annotations, so the description must carry significant context. It provides only the bare move/rotate statement and omits fov/zoom support, 2D vs 3D camera behavior, return behavior, and prerequisites, leaving important gaps for an agent to call it correctly.
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 100%, so the parameters are already documented individually with types and formats, such as '{x,y} or {x,y,z}' for position and degrees for rotation. The description adds no extra parameter context, but the baseline of 3 applies because the schema handles the semantic load.
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 phrase, 'Move or rotate', with a clear resource, 'the active camera', and it distinguishes this tool from read-style siblings like game_get_camera. However, it omits two supported capabilities visible in the schema, fov and zoom, so it under-states the tool's full purpose.
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 when-to-use guidance is provided, and no alternative tools are mentioned. An agent must infer from the name and sibling list that this is the tool for modifying the active camera, and it receives no direction about camera prerequisites or cases where game_camera_attributes or game_viewport would be more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.