Generate multiple 2D views (isometric, top, front) of a 3D object as base64 PNGs for inspection or documentation.
Render multiple views of a single object. Returns {views: {view_name: {png_base64,...}}}. Default views: ['iso', 'top', 'front'].
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| views | No | ||
| width | No | ||
| handle | Yes | ||
| height | No | ||
| deflection | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden. It usefully discloses the return structure ({views: {view_name: {png_base64,...}}}) and default views, which is real behavioral information. It omits whether rendering is expensive/slow, whether it mutates state, and what happens on an invalid handle.
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 tight sentences, front-loaded with the action and immediately followed by the return shape and defaults. Nothing is wasted, though the return-shape detail could have been replaced by documenting the unexplained parameters.
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?
No output schema exists, and the description partially compensates by describing the return shape. However, given 5 parameters at 0% coverage and no annotations, the definition is not complete enough for an agent to know what width/height/deflection do or when to prefer this over render_view.
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% across 5 parameters, and the description only clarifies the 'views' parameter by naming its defaults. The meaning and units of width, height, and especially deflection (0.5 default – deflection of what?) are entirely undocumented, so the description fails to compensate for the coverage gap.
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 specific verb (render) and resource (multiple views of a single object), and the word 'multiple' implicitly distinguishes it from the singular render_view sibling. It does not, however, explicitly name that sibling or the photoreal rendering alternatives, so sibling differentiation is left to inference.
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?
There is no statement of when to use this tool versus render_view, render_photoreal, or add_thumbnail, and no prerequisites (e.g., that the handle must come from register_handle or that an object must be visible). Usage must be inferred entirely from the name.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.