Set the active viewport camera by specifying its location, target point, and lens length to frame the model from a desired viewpoint.
Position the active viewport's camera (location + target + lens length).
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| args | Yes |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Annotations already signal that this is not read-only (readOnlyHint=false), and the description adds that it affects the active viewport's camera rather than document geometry. However, it doesn't disclose side effects, whether named views are modified, or how optional inputs like view_name alter behavior. This is acceptable but not rich.
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, front-loaded sentence with no filler. It states the action, target, and key parameters efficiently, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.
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 camera-setting tool with four parameters and no clear relationship to sibling view tools, the description is too minimal. It lacks information about optional named views, lens length constraints, units, or what happens to the active viewport when view_name is supplied. An output schema exists, so return values need not be described, but operational context is still incomplete.
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 bears the burden of explaining parameters. It lists location, target, and lens length, but omits view_name entirely and gives no semantics for coordinate formats, units, or defaults. The schema itself has some nested descriptions, but the top-level description doesn't compensate for the coverage gap.
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 is specific: it names the verb 'Position', the resource 'active viewport's camera', and the relevant properties (location, target, lens length). It clearly communicates what the tool does, though it doesn't explicitly differentiate it from camera/view-related siblings like rhino_view_set or rhino_set_view.
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?
No guidance is given about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_view_set, rhino_named_view_save, or rhino_zoom_extent. The description implies it acts on the active viewport but doesn't state when a named view should be supplied or when a different view tool is more appropriate.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.