Retrieve the active camera's position, rotation, and size in Godot to inspect or debug the current view.
Get active camera position, rotation, and size
This tool declares no required parameters. Add optional parameters from the input schema as needed.
{
"id": 1,
"jsonrpc": "2.0",
"method": "tools/call",
"params": {
"arguments": {},
"name": "game_get_camera"
}
}| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v3.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries the behavioral disclosure burden. It clearly communicates that this is a read-only retrieval operation and specifies what is returned, but it does not mention potential failure modes (e.g., no active camera) or any context about the returned coordinate system or units.
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 direct sentence with no filler. Every word contributes meaning, and the key information is front-loaded.
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 parameterless getter, the description names the exact returned values (position, rotation, size) and the subject (active camera). It does not define the return format or edge-case behavior, but overall it is complete enough for an agent to understand what this tool does.
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 tool has zero parameters and the schema is empty, so there is nothing for the description to add about parameter meaning. The baseline for a parameterless tool is appropriately strong.
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 action ('Get') and the specific resource ('active camera') along with the exact data being retrieved: position, rotation, and size. It is distinct from the related sibling game_set_camera, which is the inverse operation.
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?
The description implies it should be used when the agent needs the active camera's transform values, but it does not explicitly mention when to prefer this over alternatives like game_get_property or game_get_node_info, nor does it state any conditions where it should not be used.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.