Capture the current 3D viewport as a PNG image to inspect your model after changes. Use it to verify the result of modifications in the modeling workflow.
Capture the current 3D viewport so you can see the model. Returns a PNG image. Use after making changes to check the result.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| width | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.5.6Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly states the action (capture the current 3D viewport) and the return type (PNG image). Since this is a non-destructive capture, no warnings about side effects are necessary, but it could mention that it uses the active camera/viewpoint.
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 consists of two short sentences. The first sentence conveys the core function and purpose, and the second adds a usage hint. Every word earns its place; no redundancy or filler.
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?
For a simple screenshot tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description is largely complete: it states what is captured, the return format, and when to use it. The only gap is that it does not explicitly mention the width parameter or clarify that it captures the current viewport state (camera, layers, etc.), but overall it provides enough context for an agent to invoke 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 has one parameter (width) with 0% description coverage, and the description never mentions width or its meaning. The parameter name is somewhat self-explanatory, but the description does not compensate for the low schema coverage or clarify how width affects the output (e.g., pixels, aspect ratio).
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 ('capture') and resource ('current 3D viewport'), clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like serp_scene_info or serp_viewport. It also states the purpose ('so you can see the model'), making it immediately obvious what the tool does.
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 explicitly recommends using this tool after making changes to check the result, giving a clear use case. However, it does not mention when not to use it or name alternatives (e.g., serp_viewport for viewport control), so it lacks explicit exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.