Run a fresh Godot scene and return its rendered viewport as a PNG image. Requires a display; it does not capture an existing run.
Run a fresh scene and return its rendered viewport as a PNG image. Requires a display; does not capture an existing run.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| frames | No | ||
| scenePath | Yes | Relative or res:// PackedScene path | |
| timeoutMs | No | ||
| projectPath | Yes | Godot project directory |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.6.1Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations cover safety (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, openWorldHint=true), and the description adds a meaningful prerequisite (a display is required) plus the key semantic that it launches a fresh run rather than snapshotting an existing one. It doesn't explain time cost or how frames/timeout affect the capture, leaving some gap.
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 short sentences, front-loaded with the core action and output, followed by prerequisites and exclusions. No 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?
The output medium (PNG viewport) is conveyed even without an output schema, and the display prerequisite is noted. However, for a tool with frames and timeoutMs knobs, nothing explains their effect on the capture, leaving the agent to guess at how to tune the run.
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 coverage is only 50%: projectPath and scenePath are described in the schema, but frames and timeoutMs have no schema description. The description says nothing about any of the four parameters, so it fails to compensate for the documented gap on frames and timeoutMs.
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 ('run a fresh scene') and concrete output ('rendered viewport as a PNG image'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from capturing existing runs, which separates it from siblings like capture_screenshot and run_scene.
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?
Gives a clear condition ('requires a display') and an explicit exclusion ('does not capture an existing run'), implicitly routing agents to a different tool for that case. It stops short of naming the alternative sibling outright, so not a 5.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.