Adjust camera settings in Blender, including depth of field options such as focus distance and f-stop.
修改相机参数。dof: {enabled, focus_object, focus_distance, fstop}。
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| dof | No | ||
| lens | No | ||
| name | Yes | ||
| type | No | ||
| shift_x | No | ||
| shift_y | No | ||
| clip_end | No | ||
| clip_start | No | ||
| ortho_scale | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations and no description of side effects, overwriting behavior, or error conditions, the tool's behavior is not transparent. The user is left to infer that it modifies camera parameters in place.
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 very brief (two sentences) and front-loaded with the purpose, but it omits essential information. It is concise in length but not in content, making it poorly structured for usability.
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?
Given the tool's complexity (9 parameters, no output schema), the description is severely incomplete. It does not explain parameter behaviors, return values, or any prerequisites, leaving the agent without enough context to use 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?
The schema lists 9 parameters but the description only mentions 'dof' with its subfields, leaving lens, shift_x, shift_y, clip_start, clip_end, ortho_scale, and type completely unexplained. Since schema has no descriptions, this is insufficient.
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 clearly states the verb 'modify' and the resource 'camera parameters', distinguishing it from getter tools like get_camera_info and creator tools like create_camera, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate from more specific setters like set_active_camera.
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 guidance is provided on when to use set_camera versus alternative tools such as set_active_camera or point_camera_at. The description only states what it does, not when to choose it.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.