Render a labelled Blender contact sheet of your posed arms and rifle, showing player-eye, right, left, top, and front views so you can verify alignment and visibility.
Renders the pose as one labelled contact sheet: eye is the player's camera (90 degrees, 5 cm near plane); right, left, top and front look at the rifle from outside. Every tile is a Blender view, labelled so.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| views | No |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full burden, and it does disclose meaningful behavior: the output is a single labelled contact sheet, eye uses a 90-degree FOV with a 5 cm near plane, and the other four views observe the rifle from outside. It does not say whether files are written to disk, where the render is produced, or whether the operation is expensive, which matters for a render tool.
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 dense sentences with zero filler, and the primary output claim (a single labelled contact sheet) is front-loaded. The camera-detail clause is slightly run-on but still earns its place.
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 render tool with no annotations and no output schema, the description correctly characterizes the returned artifact and the camera setup, so the agent can call it. It stops short of covering persistence, format, or side effects, which are exactly the gaps annotations would normally fill.
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% and the enum values are not described in the schema, so the description must compensate — and it does, explaining that 'eye' is the player's camera and that right/left/top/front look at the rifle from outside. It omits the default view set (eye, right, left, top) and what happens if 'views' is left unset.
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 (renders) and resource (the pose) and names the output artifact (one labelled contact sheet), so the agent knows exactly what it gets back. It doesn't explicitly differentiate itself from nearby siblings like snapshot or screen, which is the only thing keeping it from a 5.
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 call render versus snapshot or screen, nor any prerequisites or exclusions. The description only explains what the output looks like, leaving the agent to infer the selection criteria from sibling names.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.