Rotate the Rhino viewport in a turntable animation by specifying frame count and pause duration between frames.
Animate the viewport in turntable rotation.
Args:
frames: Number of animation frames.
pause: Pause duration between frames in seconds.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| pause | No | ||
| frames | No |
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| result | Yes |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.
v1.0.0Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
The description says the tool animates the viewport, implying it affects display rather than geometry, and documents frames and pause parameters. However, with no annotations available, it does not disclose whether the animation loops, blocks execution, or affects render settings. This leaves some behavioral ambiguity for the agent.
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 description is compact and front-loaded: a single clear purpose sentence followed by direct parameter documentation. Every sentence contributes useful information with no filler or redundancy.
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 two-parameter tool, the description covers the core function and parameters, and an output schema exists so return values are not a concern. However, the lack of annotations and missing usage guidance about related turntable/render tools leaves the context incomplete for an agent deciding between similar operations.
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%, but the description compensates by explicitly defining both parameters: frames as the number of animation frames and pause in seconds. It adds meaning and units that the bare schema does not provide, though it omits constraints like positivity or typical ranges.
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 the action ('Animate the viewport') and the specific behavior ('turntable rotation'), making the tool's core purpose evident. However, it does not explicitly distinguish this from closely related siblings like rhino_turntable or rhino_turntable_render.
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 provided about when to use this tool versus alternatives such as rhino_turntable_render, rhino_view_set, or rhino_turntable. There are no prerequisites, exclusions, or contextual hints about choosing this command.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.