Capture all four Houdini viewport panes as separate images using a base output path and optional resolution, preserving each view for review or documentation.
Capture all four viewport panes to separate images.
Args: output_path: Base image path; viewport names are appended. resolution: [width, height] in pixels.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| resolution | No | ||
| output_path | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It clearly states that it captures all four panes to separate images and defines the output_path and resolution roles commensurate. However, it omits behavioral details like overwrite semantics, file formats, whether an active viewport is required, and what happens when resolution is null.
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 two concise sentences with front-loaded action and parameter bullets. Every sentence earns its place, with 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 2-parameter capture tool, the core function and parameter meanings are covered. However, given the lack of annotations and output schema, the description leaves gaps that could affect invocation: behavior with default resolution (null), file extension handling, and whether all four panes must exist. These omissions are noticeable but not crippling.
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. It adds meaningful meaning by explaining output_path as a base path with viewport names appended, and specifying the resolution format as [width, height] in pixels. This goes beyond the bare schema property types.
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') with a clearly scoped resource ('all four viewport panes') and destination ('separate images'). This distinguishes it from siblings like render_viewport or capture_screenshot, which are not scoped to all four panes.
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 phrase 'all four viewport panes' implies the use case of capturing the full quad view, but there is no explicit when-to-use guidance or mention of alternatives. The agent can infer the usage context but is not given a clear decision rule against other capture tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.