Capture a PNG snapshot of the current 3D scene to visually inspect the rendered result. Use this to verify geometry, camera angle, or object state before proceeding.
Return an actual PNG of the rendered 3D canvas (maximum 1024 pixels per side) so the agent can visually inspect the result. Requires an active inline viewer or explicit browser fallback.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| scene_id | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v0.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavioral detail: it returns an actual PNG, caps resolution at 1024 pixels per side, and requires a viewer or fallback. This goes beyond the structured hints without contradicting them.
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 concise sentences front-load the core output type and size, then state the prerequisite. Every clause adds useful information, and there is no filler or repetition of schema details.
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 single-parameter read-only tool, the description adequately covers the output format, size constraint, and necessary viewer prerequisite. It does not explain scene_id, but the low complexity and read-only annotations keep the missing guidance from being a serious gap.
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?
The schema has one required parameter, scene_id, with 0% schema description coverage, and the tool description never explains what scene_id represents, what formats are expected, or how it relates to the rendered canvas. The parameter name and schema title are self-evident at a basic level, but the description does not compensate for the missing schema documentation.
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 clearly identifies a specific action—returning a PNG of the rendered 3D canvas—and includes the output format and size limit. It also states the intended purpose ('so the agent can visually inspect the result'), which helps distinguish it from tools that manipulate or load scenes.
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 gives a clear prerequisite (active inline viewer or explicit browser fallback) and implies this is for visual inspection of rendered output. However, it does not explicitly say when to use this tool versus sibling tools like preview_3d_views, and it offers no exclusion guidance.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.