Create and aim a Blender camera at a chosen target point. Set 35mm focal length for wide shots or 50mm for close eye-level views.
Dat camera va huong no vao mot diem.
tieu_cu 35 cho phoi canh rong, 50 cho goc nhin gan voi mat nguoi.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| ten | No | ||
| vi_tri | Yes | ||
| tieu_cu | No | ||
| nhin_vao | No | ||
| dat_lam_chinh | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It does not say whether creating a camera replaces an existing one, whether it becomes the active render camera, whether it affects the current view, or whether the operation is reversible — all material for a scene-mutating tool with a 'dat_lam_chinh' (set as main) flag.
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?
Two short sentences with the core action front-loaded and no filler. It is efficient, though the second sentence is spent on one parameter rather than on the gaps that matter more.
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 five parameters, zero schema descriptions, no annotations and no output schema, the description is far too thin. An agent cannot determine what the required position array means, what the look-at target does, or what 'set as main' changes in the scene.
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% and there are five parameters, but the description only explains one of them (tieu_cu, the focal length). Position ('vi_tri', the sole required param), look-at target ('nhin_vao'), name ('ten') and the set-as-main flag ('dat_lam_chinh') receive no explanation anywhere.
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 states a specific verb and resource in Vietnamese: place a camera and aim it at a point. That is unambiguous about what the tool does, but it never distinguishes itself from nearby siblings such as 'nhin' (look) or 'render_anh' (render), which an agent must choose between.
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?
It offers practical guidance for choosing a value ('35 for wide perspective, 50 for a human-eye view'), which is genuinely useful when picking a lens. However, it says nothing about when to create a camera at all, what prerequisites exist, or how this differs from the sibling 'nhin'/'render_anh' workflow.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.