Capture the current Godot editor 2D or 3D viewport as a PNG screenshot for AI inspection, so you can review visual output without manual screenshots.
Capture the Godot editor's current 2D or 3D viewport and return the screenshot as a PNG image.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| viewport | No | Godot editor viewport to capture. | 2d |
| projectPath | Yes | Absolute path to a directory containing project.godot. |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.1.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses the return artifact (PNG image) and that it captures the *current* viewport, but says nothing about required state (editor open, bridge installed), permissions, latency, or image size limits — meaningful gaps for a tool that reaches into a live editor.
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?
A single sentence with zero filler, front-loading the action and resource and ending with the output format. Every clause 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?
With no output schema, the description usefully states the return type (PNG image), which is the key thing an agent needs. However, it omits the operational preconditions for a live-editor capture, so it is only adequate rather than complete.
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%, so both parameters are already documented, including the 2d/3d enum and the project.godot directory requirement. The description only echoes the 2D/3D choice and adds no format or path nuance, 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?
States a specific verb (capture), a precise resource (the Godot editor's current 2D or 3D viewport), and the output form (PNG screenshot). No sibling tool does anything similar, so an agent can select it unambiguously.
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 when-to-use guidance, no statement of prerequisites (e.g., that the editor bridge must be installed and the editor running, per install_godot_editor_bridge / godot_editor_status), and no exclusions. The description assumes the caller already knows the context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.