Determine where a named point or 3D coordinate falls on a 90-degree, 16:9 first-person view. Returns normalized x and y from -1 to 1 and whether it is visible.
Where a point falls on a 90 degree, 16:9 screen from the eye: x and y from -1 to 1, and whether it is on screen.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| point | Yes | a name (a bone such as hand_l, a fingertip such as index_tip_l, a rig point such as port) or [x, y, z] in the frame |
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 burden. It discloses the output coordinate range and on-screen boolean, which is useful, but it omits error behavior, permission requirements, and edge-case handling for point resolution.
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 definition is a single front-loaded sentence with no wasted words. It efficiently conveys the projection and return semantics.
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 one-parameter tool with no output schema, the description gives a reasonable summary of the computed result, but it lacks usage guidance among many siblings and does not fully specify the return structure or failure modes.
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 100%, and the point parameter is fully documented in the schema. The description does not add syntax or format details beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.
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 states a specific computation: projecting a point onto a 90-degree 16:9 screen from the eye and reporting x/y in -1..1 plus on-screen status. It is clear what the tool does, but it does not explicitly distinguish itself from related siblings such as visible or where.
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 guidance on when to use this tool instead of alternatives like visible, faces_eye, or where. The description implies a screen-projection use case but provides no explicit context or exclusions.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.