Returns a picture of Archicad's current window, so you can check your work.
Returns a picture of Archicad's current window, so you can check your work.
Works for the 3D window and for 2D windows. Switch window first with ChangeWindow if needed. entire_drawing: in a 2D window, capture the whole drawing, not just the zoom.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| port | No | ||
| entire_drawing | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, closed-world), and the description adds genuinely useful context beyond them: window-type coverage, the need to switch windows first, and the difference between zoomed and whole-drawing capture. It does not describe the returned image format or size, which is a minor remaining gap.
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?
Three short sentences, front-loaded with the core behavior and followed by the prerequisite and the parameter note. The trailing 'entire_drawing:' fragment is slightly clipped but not wasteful.
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 output schema, the description does state that the result is a picture, and annotations carry the safety profile. The main omissions are the port parameter's meaning and any hint about the image payload (format, resolution), which an agent may need to handle the response 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 0%, so the description must carry the parameter burden. It explains entire_drawing well ('capture the whole drawing, not just the zoom') but says nothing about the port parameter, leaving one of two parameters undocumented in both places.
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 concrete verb and resource ('Returns a picture of Archicad's current window') plus the intent ('check your work'), which is enough to separate it from archicad_read and archicad_modify without opening a schema. The scope (3D and 2D windows) is stated explicitly.
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?
Gives a real prerequisite ('Switch window first with ChangeWindow if needed') and the condition that selects the entire_drawing behavior. It lacks an explicit when-not-to-use clause, but for a screenshot tool the intended use case is clear.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.