render_viewsRender a CAD object from multiple viewpoints, returning base64 PNG images for each view. Configure custom views, dimensions, and deflection for inspection or downstream use.
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?
Beyond the readOnlyHint annotation, the description discloses the exact return envelope ({views: {view_name: {png_base64,...}}}) and the default views. It also implies synchronous behavior by stating 'Returns' rather than mentioning job submission. It does not explain how width, height, or deflection affect output, but the annotations already cover the safety profile.
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 sentences with no filler. The action, return shape, and defaults are all front-loaded and each sentence adds useful information.
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?
The return shape is helpful given there is no output schema, and a default call is well-specified. However, with 5 parameters at 0% schema description coverage and a large sibling tool set, the description leaves non-default parameter semantics and sibling differentiation underspecified.
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 compensate for parameter meaning. It connects the required handle to 'a single object' and documents default views, but it offers no semantics for width, height, or deflection. An agent cannot determine units, pixel dimensions, or what deflection controls from this description alone.
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 ('Render'), identifies the resource ('multiple views of a single object'), and distinguishes itself from the sibling render_view by emphasizing multiple views. It also states the default view set, which makes the tool's behavior immediately predictable.
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 usage: use this tool when you need multiple standard views of one object. However, it never explicitly says when to choose render_views over render_view, render_photoreal, or render_fem_results, and it gives no exclusions or alternative criteria.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.